\UG 8 1898 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Chap. Copyright JS T o. J_l^. 

Shelf„_„__„_._. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. | 



BIBLE TOOLS FOR BU$.f£OPLE. 



BY 



JOHN H. NICHOLS, 

Of the Tennessee Conference, 
Author of "Grub- Ax" "Pumj?" etc. 



THIS BOOK IS A COLLECTION OF ALL THE AUTHOR'S 
PAMPHLETS INTO ONE VOLUME, WITH 
ADDITIONAL NEW MATTER. 



Nashville, Tenn.: 
Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South. 
Barbee & Smith, Agents. 
1898. 



\ 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S9S, 

By John H. Nichols, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



1898. 




AUG 



i) 



JWO COPIES RECEIVED- 




PREFACE 



In preparing this volume, which might well oe called a Doc- 
trinal Tool-Chest, I have had special reference to putting much 
matter into little space, and I have written in the plainest Eng- 
lish language, so that all classes may readily understand every 
argument made. Tools may be very fine, made of the best ma- 
terial ; but if they are so complicated that it requires the best 
skilled workmen to use them, they are of little use to the masses. 

" Put the fodder low enough for the horses," is an adage which 
has been closely observed by the author, and lie has kept in 
mind the fact that ponies and colts need fodder as well as large, 
mature horses. 

"I had rather speakvfive words with my understanding, that 
by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words 
in an unknown tongue." (1 Cor. xiv. 19.) Therefore I have 
endeavored to speak "not with enticing words of man's wis- 
dom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." (1 Cor. 
ii. 4.) With sincere gratitude to the public for the generous re- 
ception given to my former publications — more than 243,000 
copies having been sold — I send out this chest of " Bible Tools 
for Busy People" with the earnest desire that thousands may 
profit by the use of the tools. 

Very truly, John H. Nichols. 

(iii) 



INTRODUCTION. 

Having spent much money for books, and having read many 
large volumes in search of light on the doctrinal subjects which 
have been in discussion for many years, it occurred to me that 
vast numbers of intelligent laymen in all the Churches who do 
not have time to read so many large volumes nor the nioney to 
spend for such costly books would be pleased to read a small 
book filled with boiled-down truth, so I have done my best to 
produce such a volume. I always liked beans, cabbage, peas, 
etc., but I never like them so well when they are taken out of 
two quarts of pot-liquor. I always want them boiled doicn. I 
have somewhat the same taste for books. 

So I have hunted for the shortest road to the truth on all the 
doctrines discussed in this volume, and have tried to reach all 
my conclusions by the plainest and most common sense way, 
which is always the Bible way. " To the law and to the testimo- 
ny " has been my motto in all I have prepared for " Bible Tools 
for Busy People." Out of a full heart I devoutly thank God 
that he has "directed my paths " in this " labor of love;" and 
now that the work is done, if I did not realize that God is with 
me in my purpose to send out this book to the world, these 
pages would never be bound in a permanent form ; but, hearing 
the " still small voice " whispering within, " Lo, I am with you," 
I go forward with love and confidence. If I have departed 
from the style of other authors in my way of writing, I have 
done it as a free-born American citizen, without realizing that 
I am due any one an apology for so doing. 

The Author. 

(iv) 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter I. page 
The Wheel. Eeligious Organization God's Order . . , 5 

Chapter II. 

The Grub-Ax. Errors on Infant Baptism Grabbed Up .... 61 
Chapter III. 

The Curry-Comb. Infant Baptism from a New Standpoint. 93 
Chapter IV. 

The Pump. The Water Pumped Out of Campbellism 123 

Chapter V. 

The Sprinkler. Xo Dip in the Bible, but Sprinkle, Pour. . 175 
Chapter VI. 

The Furnace. The Dross Taken Out of False Teaching ... 217 
Chapter VII. 

The Shipwreck. Apostasy and Close Communion Consid- 
ered.... 267 

Chapter YIII. 

The Right of a Sinner to Pray for Pardon 301 

Chapter IX. 

A Friendly Talk on the Second Blessing 327 

Chapter X. 

Saul's Conversion. A Clear Case of Holiness 365 

Chapter XI. 

Analogy. Second-Blessing Theory of Sanctification. An 

Argument from Scripture and Analogy 370 

(v) 



THE WHEEL. 



Religious Organization God's Order. 

(i) 



INTRODUCTION. 

Joseph saved Egypt from perishing in the famine by organi- 
zation: "Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet 
and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. . . . And let 
him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part 
of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years." (Gen. xli. 
33, 34.) Moses brought Israel out of Egypt by organization ; 
The Lord said to Moses, " Go, and gather the elders of Israel to- 
gether, and say unto them," etc. (Ex. iii. 16.) After crossing 
the Red Sea he organized for the journey in the wilderness: 
"And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them 
heads of the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, 
rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the 
people at all seasons." (Ex. xviii. 25, 26.) Solomon organ- 
ized for building the temple: "And Solomon told out three- 
score and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore 
thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and 
six hundred to oversee them." (2 Chron. ii. 2.) Jesus organ- 
ized for his work on earth: "And he ordained twelve, that 
they should be with him, and that he might send them forth 
to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out 
devils." (Mark iii. 14, 15.) "After these things the Lord ap- 
pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before 
his face into every city and place whither he himself would 
come." (Luke x. i.) Eeader, by carefully reading this little 
book you will find that organization for religious work is God's 
order, and that the Methodists are not sinners above all men 
because they are well organized for the purpose of spreading 
scriptural holiness over these lands and bringing the world to 
Christ. The Author. 

(3) 



A WHEEL IN THE MIDDLE OF A WHEEL. 

" Behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures. 
. . . And their appearance and their work was as it were a 
wheel in the middle of a wheel. . . . And when the living 
creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living 
creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted 
up. . . . For the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. 
. . . And above the firmament that was over their heads was 
the likeness of a throne. . . . And upon the likeness of the 
throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon 
it; and I saw ... as the appearance of fire round about within 
it, . . . and it had brightness round about. As the appearance 
of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the 
appearance of the brightness round about. This was the ap- 
pearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." (Ezek. i. 
15-28.) Here is complete organization. Wheels and living 
creatures, all moving in concert in the middle of a ivheel, or encir- 
cled by general organization, with fire and brightness, or the 
spirit and glory of God in every part, and his care and protection 
over the whole "as the bow that is in the cloud in the day of 
rain." Perfect organization for the work of saving souls is " the 
glory of the Lord." The religious anarchs of the present day 
are as hurtful to religious government as the political anarchs 
are to civil government — both oppose all human leaders in 
theory, and both want to be leaders in fact. The Author. 
(4) 



OHAPTEE I. 
The Wheel. 



Campbell ite. Why, here's friend Nichols again. 
How are yon? 

Methodist. Well, I thank yon. Glad to see yon. 
I have been seeing something of you in the Gospel 
Advocate occasionally, and I am glad to take your 
hand again. 

Campbell ite. And you read the Gospel Advocate, eh! 
How can you read that excellent paper, and still re- 
main in the Methodist Church? Have not the edi- 
tors of that paper convinced you that organizations, 
such as the "Methodist institution," are all unscrip- 
tural, and that God never intended that the world 
should be converted by organized effort; but that 
individual effort, independent of and outside of any 
general organization, is God's plan? It does seem 
to me that the various members of the "Gosjoel Ad- 
vocate Publishing Company," Nashville, Tenn., have 
said enough against "organized efforts" to convince 
any reasonable man that the New Testament order 
is directly opposed to all organized efforts in reli- 
gious matters. 

Methodist. Yes; I have read much that has been 
said on that subject by "various members of the 
Gospel Advocate Publishing Company," and it is 
quite amusing to me to see "various members" of 
an organized " Publishing Company " writing against 

(5) 



6 



The "Wheel. 



organizations. Is it not the object of the " Gospel 
Advocate Publishing" organization to convert the 
world? What they say against "religious organiza- 
tion" reminds rue of the devil preaching against sin. 
Thou that sayest religious organizations are all 
wrong, dost thou belong to a religious organization? 

Campbellite. I had not thought of it in that light; 
but somehow I cannot believe that organization is 
God's order, and if you can show te the contrary, I 
will be glad to hear you. 

Methodist. Very well. Now we will take time to 
open our Bibles and see each text I may use, for you 
know I always go " to the law and to the testimony " 
on religious subjects. Now open at Genesis xli. 33-35 : 
" Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet 
and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let 
Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over 
the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of 
Egypt in the seven plenteous years. And let them 
gather all the food of those good years that come, 
and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let 
them keep food in the cities." Here is organization. 
"And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee 
over all the land of Egypt." (Verse 41.) Joseph, by 
inspiration of God, interpreted Pharaoh's dreams, 
and advised him to organize by appointing officers 
over the ivhole land of Egypt, and by an organized 
effort save the people from starvation; and Pharaoh 
had sense enough to follow Joseph's instructions, and 
did save the people. 

Campbellite. But might not the people have been 
saved by individual effort without this expensive or- 
ganization? 



The Wheel. 



7 



Methodist. Indeed, I do not know, but I do know 
they were saved by organized effort, and that " God 
was with Joseph," who was head of the organization. 
Now suppose the " Gospel Advocate Publishing Com- 
pany " had been in change of affairs in Egypt at that 
time, would they not have said: " Joseph, that will 
never do; it is too muek like the 'method of the 
Methodists;' all those officers will have to live, and 
they can't live without a salary, and that will make 
it too expensive. Away with your organized effort; 
individual effort is the thins:." 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know. 

Methodist You don't? When we appoint officers 
over the whole land where* our Church operates, to 
gather up part of the products of the land to save 
the heathen, don't they cry out, " Unscriptural, con- 
trary to God's order; " and when some of your breth- 
ren organize missionary societies, don't they cry out, 
"Method of the Methodists; you're creating faction 
in the body of Christ; abandon your methods or we 
will withdraw from you?" Don't you reckon they 
would have withdrawn from Joseph if they had been 
in Egypt when he headed that general organization 
which covered all the land? 

Campbellite. I believe I will let the " Gospel Advo- 
cate Publishing Company" answer for themselves. 
Can you give me another case, as I don't think the 
one you gave applies directly to Church work. 

Methodist. Tes; we will now turn to Exodus iii. 10, 
16, 18. God said to Moses: "Come now therefore, and 
I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring- 
forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt." 
"Go, and gather the elders of Israel together;" 



8 



The Wheel. 



"and they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt 
come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of 
Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the 
Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go." Here 
we see God appointed a leader when he would bring 
his Church out of Egypt, and sent this leader to the 
elders of his people who were to cooperate with the 
leader, and by organized effort God's people were to 
be brought out of Egypt. So perfect was this or- 
ganization that when the Passover was to be observed 
it was only necessary for Moses, the leader, to " call 
for all the elders of Israel" (Ex. xii. 21), and in- 
struct them what to do, and the Passover was ob- 
served by about eighteen hundred thousand people. 

Campbellite. Pshaw! all that was done by individ- 
ual effort; each individual slew his own lamb, and 
sprinkled his own doorposts with the blood. 

Methodist Just so; and this universal individual 
effort was secured by means of a perfect organiza- 
tion. You talk like organization interferes with 
individual effort; but on the contrary, it is God's 
means of securing the most general individual effort. 
After leaving Egypt "Moses chose able men out of 
all Israel, and made them heads over the people, 
rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of 
fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the 
people at all seasons." (Ex. xviii. 25, 26. ) Does that 
look like organization? If you and the "Gospel 
Advocate Company" had been there, wouldn't you 
have cried out: "Too much organization. One man 
has no right to rule over another, or dictate to others 
what they shall do. Too much like the Metho- 
dists?" 



The Wheel. 



9 



Campbellite. I have just been letting you alone to 
see where you would run to. All that you have said 
is based on the Old Testament, and you ought to 
know that it is all out of date, and has no bearing on 
God's Church now. 

Methodist. Yes, I know that you don't give the 
Old Testament much weight in your Church; but the 
God of the New Testament is the God of the Old 
also, and he does not change. I am sick of this way 
you have of talking as though there were two Gods, 
one of the Old and the other of the New Testament. 
If God were a God of order and organization in olden 
times, what has happened to turn him against re- 
ligious organizations now? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know; but I am sure 
the editors of the Gospel Advocate can explain it 
fully, and I am not going to give up my point. I say 
emphatically that organized effort is a positive hin- 
drance to the work of God, and contrary to the 
teaching of the Bible, for Brothers Srygley, Lips- 
comb, Sewell, and many others have said so often in 
the Gospel Advocate, and I am sure they know. 

Methodist. The chapter and verse you give to sus- 
tain your doctrine is, " Brothers Srygley, Lipscomb, 
Sewell, and others, say so," eh! Well, that is about 
as well as you can do, I think. Now suppose I show 
you that God always chose his own prophets, priests, 
and kings, and that he protected them from any 
usurpations of their offices by bad men. 

Campbell ite. I don't think you can do it. 

Methodist. Let us see. We will take the case of 
MOSES. 

"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a 



10 



The Wheel. 



prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like 
unto me," (Dent, xviii. 15.) This is the language of 
Moses, so we see he was God's prophet. 2sow take 

AARON AND HIS SOXS. 
God said to Moses: "And take thou unto thee 
Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, . . . 
that he may minister unto me in the priest's office." 
(Ex. xxviii. 1.) " For the Lord thy God hath chosen 
him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the 
name of the Lord, him and his sons forever." (Deut. 
xviii. 5.) So we see God chose his own prophets 
and priests. Is ow let us see if he chose his 

KINGS. 

David says: "Howbeit the Lord God of Israel 
chose me before all the house of my father to be 
king over Israel forever, . . . and of all my sons, 
. . . he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon 
the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel." 
(1 Chron. xxviii. 4, 5.) So we see God chose his 
own kings too, and ail this looks like organization, 
doesn't it? 

Campbellite. It may look so to you, but you have 
not shown that God protected them against usurpers. 

Methodist. Very well. I will now show you that 
God protected his 

PROPHETS AND PRIESTS AGAINST USURPERS. 

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram "gathered themselves 
together against Moses and against Aaron, and said 
unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all 
the congregation are holy, every one of them, and 
the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up 
yourselves above the congregation of the Lord.'' 



The Wheel. 



11 



(Num. xvi. 3.) Moses said unto them: "And seek ye 
the priesthood also? For which cause both thou 
and all thy company are gathered together against 
the Lord." (Verses 10, 11.) But they were deter- 
mined in their purpose, so "the earth opened her 
mouth, and swallowed them up." (Verse 32.) That 
is the way God dealt with those who rebelled against 
organization in those days. Now notice how he 
dealt with those who usurped the office of prophet. 
"Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the 
prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them 
not. ... By sword and famine shall those prophets 
be consumed." (Jer. xiv. 15.) I believe you and 
your brethren teach that one man has the same 
rights as another in the Church of God now, since 
you teach that organization is all wrong. 

Campbellite. We don't believe in your Methodist 
organizations; we believe in individual effort and 
freedom. I wish you would come to the New Testa- 
ment, and then I will show you your error. 

Methodist We will get to the New Testament be- 
fore we are done. Just be patient till I show you 
what became of those who tried to usurp the office of 
king. " Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted 
himself, saying, I will be king." (1 Kings i. 5.) "And 
king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son 
of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died." 
(1 Kings ii. 25.) Now I might give you other in- 
stances to the same effect, but those already given 
show plainly that God had an organized Church in 
olden times, and that he called his own prophets, 
priests, and kings, and that he protected them in the 
offices to which he appointed them. 



12 



The Wheel. 



Camphellite. Yes, you are trying to work out a 
Methodist arrangement by the Bible, and you ought 
to know that organization is a very hotbed of con- 
fusion and trouble, and you ought to quit trying to 
do the Lord's work by organized effort; you are mis- 
leading the people. 

Methodist I suppose you would give the "Gospel 
Advocate Publishing Company " as chapter and verse 
to prove the truth of your statement. Let me give 
you the plan adopted by 

SOLOMON 

when he was going into the great work of building 
the temple of the Lord. "And Solomon told out 
threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, 
and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and 
three thousand and six hundred to oversee them." 
(2 Chron. ii. 2.) Do you reckon Solomon was try- 
ing to work out a Methodist arrangement when he 
did this? or was he trying to create a "very hotbed 
of confusion and trouble ? " 

Campbdlite. W-e-1-1, I don't know; but it looks 
strange to me that so wise a man as Solomon should, 
have actually organized one hundred and fifty thou- 
sand men into a working force, and then appoint over 
them thirty-six hundred overseers. I just confess I 
do not understand it, for the very idea of overseers 
carries with it the idea that the hundred and fifty 
thousand men who were to do the work must be sub- 
ject to the overseers, and it looks to me like that 
would interfere with their individual rights, so I just 
own up that I cannot understand it. 

Methodist Don't you think that if you and the 



The Wheel. 



13 



"Gospel Advocate Company" had been there you 
could have shown Solomon a much better way? 

Campbellite. I don't like to say, but it does look 
like Solomon was smartly tinctured with something 
like the method of the Methodists. But why don't 
you come to the New Testament, and I'll settle you 
then. 

Methodist You acknowledge, then, that organiza- 
tion was God's order in Old Testament days, do you? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1 — it seems so, but a new order 
of things was established by Christ and his apostles. 

Methodist. Very well. We will see about that 
"new order of things" after a w T hile. I was going 
on to show you that God was so strict with his people 
that he not only had them thoroughly organized 
w T hen he brought them out of Egypt, but he even 
gave orders as to the order in which they should 
pitch their tents when they went into camp ( Num. i. 
52, 53), the order in which the army should move; 
and that Solomon in his grand organization for 
building the temple specified the exact number who 
should " bear burdens," the exact number who should 
"hew in the mountains," and the exact number that 
should " oversee " them. He also " raised a levy out 
of all Israel" of "thirty thousand men," whom he 
"sent to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: 
a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at 
home." ( 1 Kings v. 13, 14 ) I might show you also that 
God had treasuries in his Church, and that treasur- 
ers were appointed over the funds put into the treas- 
uries (Neh. xiii. 13), and God demanded that his 
cause should be supported in a systematic way, and 
therefore enjoined that all the people should pay 



The Wheel. 



one-tenth of their gross income for this cause (Lev. 
xxvii. 30-32). But it is unnecessary to pursue this 
line any further, as you admit all I have said, and we 
will come at once to 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Now will you show me one verse in the New Tes- 
tament that shows it is wrong to have religious or- 
ganizations nowadays? 

Campbellite. You don't seem to understand just 
what we teach in regard to religious organizations. 
We teach that the New Testament plan is this: It is 
all right for the people of one neighborhood to or- 
ganize themselves into a church, and that such or- 
ganization is entirely independent of all other organ- 
izations; that the New Testament opposes anything 
like a general organization, such as the Methodist in- 
stitution has, and I am going to show up the un- 
scripturalness of the method of the Methodists. 

Methodist. O yes; I see now. A little organiza- 
tion is all right, but a big one is all wrong. That's 
very strange. What chapter and verse will you give 
me to prove your position? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't think of any verse 
just now that says anything directly against general 
organizations. 

Methodist. As you have no scripture ready just 
now, suppose we turn to the twelfth chapter of First 
Corinthians and see if we can get any light on the 
subject. If we read verses twelve to twenty-six, 
we see that the apostle takes a natural, human body 
as an illustration of the body or Church of Christ. 
He mentions the various members of the body, and 



The Wheel. 



15 



then says: "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I 
have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, 
I have no need of you." (Terse 21.) Why not? 
Because it takes every member of the body to make 
a perfect organization; and no eye, hand, foot, or 
head has a right to say it is an independent organiza- 
tion, and is in no way connected with the general or- 
ganization of the body, and is not subject to the gen- 
eral government of the body. 

Campbellite. Tou don't give me any chance to say 
anything. I — 

Methodist. I don't? I asked you to give me some 
scripture against general organization, such as we 
Methodists have, and you failed to do it, and I was 
giving you some to show you that the Church of 
Christ is as perfect in its general organization as is 
the human body. Now take the twenty-seventh and 
twenty-eighth verses, and you will see how the apos- 
tle applies his illustration to the Church. " Now ye 
are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, 
diversities of tongues." Does this look like general 
organization or not? 
■ Oampbellite. W-e-1-1, 1 don't see how a human body 
can be an illustration of the Church of Christ. I — 

Methodist. Maybe you don't, but Paul did. Now 
we will notice how Jesus organized for his work on 
earth when he began his public ministry. "And 
he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him 
whom he would: and they came unto him. And he 
ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and 



16 



The Wheel. 



that he might send them forth to preach." (Mark 
iii. 13, 14. ) "After these things the Lord appointed 
other seventy also, and sent them two and two before 
his face into every city and place, whither he himself 
would come." (Luke x. 1.) This looks very much 
like organization, doesn't it? 

Campbellite. Yes, but that was Christ, and not a 
Methodist bishop. Christ had the right to rule his 
Church while he was on earth; but no man, nor set 
of men, have had any such right since he left the 
world. 

Methodist What? Just listen to Christ's own 
words, will you? "And I appoint unto you a king- 
dom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye 
may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and 
sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Is- 
rael." (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) 1. Notice, the apostles 
were appointed to the kingdom by Christ as he had 
been appointed by his Father. 2. By the Father's 
appointment Christ had the right to rule the Church, 
you say; but by the appointment of Christ to the 
same kingdom, in the same way, the apostles had no 
right to rule. Is that your logic? 3. Only one 
kingdom — "I appoint unto you a kingdom" — but 
twelve thrones— "sit on twelve thrones judging." 
Jesus was " King of kings, and Lord of lords," and 
he appointed the twelve apostles, as his officers, rulers, 
judges in his kingdom, to take the oversight of his 
kingdom (Church), and thus Christ followed the plan 
of the Father in calling and appointing his leaders as 
the Father had done in all the past ages; so you see 
that God is still a God of order, and " changeth not." 
Now I — 



The Wheel. 



17 



Campbellite. O stop! It looks to me like you are 
determined not to come to the point. You know I 
do not care for anything you say about organiza- 
tion before the day of Pentecost, for the Christian 
Church was not established till that day, and I — 

Methodist. Yes, yes; I know that is what you "do 
vainly teach," but your theory has been thoroughly 
exploded in " Grub Ax," and I do not — 

Campbellite. Hold on, brother; you cut me off be- 
fore I was through. What if Christ did call and ap- 
point leaders while he was on earth? " When Jesus 
was on earth in person, he knew the human heart, 
and could accept such voluntary acts as he saw did 
express and prove faith." (Elder D. Lipscomb, in 
Gospel Advocate, December 13, 1894. ) And he knew 
who were suitable for leaders, but what does that 
have to do with the Church of Christ since the day 
of Pentecost? 

Methodist. Do you mean to say that Jesus does 
not now know the human heart, and that he does not 
now know who are suitable for leaders in his Church, 
and that he cannot now call and appoint such lead- 
ers? Let me understand you. 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, as the Church was not organ- 
ized till the day of Pentecost, I think it out of order 
to go behind that day to find anything for the gov- 
ernment of the Church now. 

Methodist. O yes; I see now. You think that God 
was a God of order for about four thousand years, or 
till the day of Pentecost ; that he then favored perfect 
organization, had his officers all in their proper of- 
fices, and protected them against all usurpers ; but 
since Pentecost he favors anarchy, confusion, disor- 



18 



The "Wheel. 



der in general, no supreme government. That is your 
idea, is it? 

Campbellite. No — I — w-e-1-1, I don't believe one 
man lias the right to rule over another in anything. 
I believe in individual effort in everything, and I 
think general organization interferes with individual 
effort. I am opposed to interfering with the indi- 
vidual rights of men. 

Methodist. Yes; Korah, Dathan, and Abiram did 
not believe in one man ruling over another ; they re- 
sisted the authority of Moses and Aaron, and God 
caused the earth to "open her mouth and swallow 
them up." (Num. xvi. 32.) And you think general 
government interferes with individual effort. So 
think all anarchists, and I suppose you are a religious 
anarchist, are you ? 

Campbellite. You are insulting, sir, and I demand 
that you treat me with respect. If you are going to 
show that the New Testament favors such an organ- 
ization as the Methodist Church, I wish you would 
do so. 

Methodist. Keep cool, brother, and I will get to 
your point soon. I wish to show first that 

GOD IS THE AUTHOE OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT, 

and that he demands of all men that they submit to 
the laws of general government as they are adminis- 
tered by the officers of the government. 

Campbellite. You can't do it, sir. "General gov- 
ernment," as you call it, is man's work and not God's. 
No Christian has any right to vote, or hold office in 
your man-made "general government," as you call it. 
Now stick to the Book, will you? 



The Wheel. 



19 



Methodist. O yes, I will stick to the Bible. We will 
how turn to Romans, thirteenth chapter: "Let every 
soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is 
no power but of God : the powers that be are or- 
dained [ordered] of God." (Terse 1.) Here we see 

(1) that every man is to be subject to the laws of 
civil government; (2) that civil government is "or- 
dained of God." Take verse 2: " Whosoever therefore 
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, 
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damna- 
tion." Here we learn (1) that to resist civil author- 
ity is to resist the "ordinance of God;" (2) that all 
who resist "receive to themselves damnation." Now 
take verses 3 to 5 : " For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to the evil. . . . For he is the 
minister of God to thee for good. . . . Where- 
fore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath 
[fear of the ruler's wrath], but also for conscience' 
sake." Here we learn (1) that rulers in civil govern- 
ment " are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; " 

(2) that rulers are "ministers of God" to us for 
good; (3) that we "must needs be subject " for " con- 
science' sake." Doesn't this look like God is the Au- 
thor of civil government, and that civil officers are 
"ministers of God for good? " 

Campbelliie. To tell you the truth, I must confess 
that it does. 

Methodist. And your theory is that, though God is 
the Author of civil government, and civil officers are 
ministers of God for good, yet it is very wrong for 
Christians to vote or hold office in civil govern- 
ment. Where is your scripture for that kind of 
doctrine? 



20 



The Wheel. 



Campbell ite. W-e-1-1, Brother Lipscomb says Chris- 
tians have no right to vote or hold office, and I believe 
what he says about it. Why don't you stop your 
jumping round from place to place, and show me 
something in the New Testament that justifies such 
an organization as the Methodist Church? I say you 
can't do it, sir. 

Methodist. Don't get impatient. Just let me ask 
you what objection you have to such an organ- 
ization as the Methodist Church. What's wrong 
about it? 

Campbellite. Why, everything is wrong about it. 
The New Testament favors nothing of the sort. It 
favors no organization except that of single societies, 
each society being entirely separate from and inde- 
pendent of all other societies— no general organiza- 
tion, if you please. Such organization would hinder 
individual effort, bring some men into subjection to 
others^ and produce confusion. 

Methodist. Now I understand you. You think it 
would be better for this country if we had no United 
States Government, if each county in the United 
States was a separate organization, not in any way 
connected with or subject to any other county, state, 
or general government ; that general government in- 
terferes with individual effort to make corn, wheat, 
cotton, or anything else that pertains to making sup- 
port for one's family. That is your idea, is it? 

Campbellite. I was not talking about civil govern- 
ment ; I was talking about Church matters. I dare 
you to show me anything like general organization 
or government in the Church of the New Testament. 
Try it, will you? 



The Wheel. 



21 



Methodist. One more question first : If general or- 
ganization interferes with individual effort generally, 
will not local organization interfere with individual 
effort locally? 

Campbellite. I don't care to answer that ; come to 
my question. 

Methodist. Yery well. When certain men went 
down from J udea to Antioch and stirred up the Church 
on the subject of circumcision, "they determined 
that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, 
should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and 
elders about this question." (Acts xv. 2.) Now, if 
the church at Antioch was an independent organiza- 
tion, not connected with nor under any obligation to 
any other body, what right had the "apostles and 
brethren," many miles away, in Jerusalem, to settle 
questions for the church at Antioch? 

Campbellite. Certainly they had a right to settle 
any question that the church at Antioch submitted 
to them for settlement. Is that the best you can do? 

Methodist. Let us notice this case closely. "And 
being brought on their way by the church, they passed 
through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy unto 
all the brethren." Seeing that Phenice and Samaria 
were much nearer to Antioch than Jerusalem was, 
why did not the brethren, the church at Antioch, sub- 
mit their difficulty to one of those churches for set- 
tlement? Why did they pass by them and send away 
up to Jerusalem to the "apostles and elders?" 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know, but I — 

Methodist. You don't know? "And when they 
were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the 



22 



The Wheel. 



church, and of the apostles and elders." (Verse 4.) 
Doesn't that look a little like the " church" and the 
"apostles and elders" of the Methodist Church re- 
ceiving and caring for the delegates to a Conference? 

Canipbellite. Methodist Church, indeed! Who ever 
heard the like? 

Methodist Keep cool, brother, and I will go on. 
" But there rose up certain of the sect of the Phari- 
sees which believed, saying, That it was needful to cir- 
cumcise them, and to command them to keex3 the law 
of Moses." (Yerse 5.) Here is the very thing that 
the church at Antioch wanted settled by the " apostles 
and elders" So "the apostles and elders came to- 
gether for to consider of this matter." (Verse 6.) 
Doesn't that look like the " apostles and elders" com- 
posed a sort of General Conference, part of whose 
business it was to settle doctrinal troubles that might 
arise in any society belonging to the Church of God? 
And were not Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, 
delegates elect to this conference ? 

Campbellite. General Conference and delegates elect to 
it ! Did you ever? 

Methodist Yes, sir ; delegates elect. The church 
at Antioch " determined that Paul and Barnabas, and 
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto 
the apostles and elders about this question." (Verse 
2.) Now, if the church determined who should go, 
were not those who went delegates elect? 

Cetmphellite. W-e-1-1, I don't wish to answer that 
question. 

Methodist If you will not answer that question, I 
will ask } T ou another. What objection do you have 
to a conference as the highest court of God's Church, 



The Wheel. 



23 



to which troublesome questions may be submitted by 
any or all of the churches for final settlement, and 
which is a legislative body also, how could the Church 
of Christ get along without such a conference? 

CampbelUte. Why, I have every objection to it. Just 
the idea of such a thing, for instance, as a Methodist 
Conference, where they dispute, make speeches for and 
against matters under consideration, and then finally 
come to an agreement and send to all the churches a 
report of their action, and enjoin upon the churches 
that they govern themselves by the decisions of that 
conference - -just such an idea ! 

Methodist. Come, brother; don't get excited. Just 
keep cool, and I will go on with my examination of 
the doings of that conference held by the " apostles 
and elders " in Jerusalem. Don't forget that we have 
a full account of it in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. 
We will now take verse 7: "And when there had been 
much disputing, Peter rose up" and made a speech. 
So you see the apostles and elders had " much disput- 
ing " in their conference. Is it any worse for the 
apostles and elders of the Methodist Church to have 
disputing in their conferences than it was for the 
apostles and elders to have " much disputing " in their 
conference? What do you think about Peter making 
a speech? 

CampbelUte. Well, sir, I must acknowledge that I 
never noticed that before. It does seem strange to 
me that the " apostles and brethren " could not settle 
matters away back there in the 'days of inspiration 
without "much disputing." 

Methodist. It may seem strange to you, neverthe- 
less it is a fact ; and now we will go on. When Peter 



24 



The Wheel. 



finished his speech, "then all the multitude kept si- 
lence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul." 
(Verse 12.) "And after they had held their peace, 
James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken 
unto me." (Verse 13.) So James made what seems 
to have been the closing speech, and the conference 
came to a conclusion. " Then pleased it the apostles 
and elders, with the whole church, to send" — 

Campbellite. Hold on, brother ; hand me your Bi- 
ble. What you have been reading to me sounds so 
much like the doings of a Methodist Conference that 
I want to see if you read it right. I declare to you I 
never noticed that before. Yes, here it is — "much 
disputing " — then Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James 
all made speeches. Well, I just own up that I did 
not know that was the apostolic way of settling Church 
matters. I thought you Methodists w^ere clear out of 
the Bible in your Conference doings. That's strange 
to me. 

Methodist. It is very strange to me that you never 
noticed these things before, especially as they are re- 
corded right here in the Acts of the Apostles. If it 
had been recorded in the Old Testament, I should not 
have been surprised, but as the Acts is your chief 
book, I am very much surprised. But you stopped 
me as I was going on to show you what the Confer- 
ence did when they came to an agreement. " Then 
pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole 
church, to send chosen men of their own company to 
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, Judas 
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the 
brethren." (Verse 22.) But what right had they to 
send chosen men, " chief men among the brethren " to 



The Wheel. 



25 



Antioch to serve the church there, if every congrega- 
tion was an independent organization, and iu no way 
connected with nor under the jurisdiction of a gen- 
eral organization? 

Campbellite. O, well, I suppose they had the right 
to send men down there to teach the brethren in An- 
tioch, but they had no right to bind the church at 
Antioch by any law enacted by the "apostles and 
elders " in Jerusalem. 

Methodist. But if the church at Antioch was entire- 
ly independent of any other organization, it was their 
business and right to select their own teachers, and 
not the business or right of the " apostles and elders " 
away up at Jerusalem to select and send them teach- 
ers. But take another item : Before adjourning, the 
Conference " wrote letters after this manner : The 
apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto 
the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch 
and Syria and Cilicia." (Verse 23. ) "It seemed good 
unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send cho- 
sen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and 
Paul." (Verse 25.) "We have sent therefore Judas 
and Silas. . . . For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, 
and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than 
these necessary things," etc. (Verses 27, 28. ) Here 
we learn that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, in 
conference "assembled with one accord," Sent "chosen 
men " to the churches in "Antioch and Syria and Cili- 
cia," and w^rote a letter to them, laying certain burdens 
upon them. Now, how can all this be accounted for on 
the theory that the New Testament recognizes no gen- 
eral organization in the Church of Jesus Christ? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know ; but when I Bee 



26 



The Wheel. 



Methodist Conferences doing such business as that, I 
always call it man's work, and that's what Brothers 
Srygley, Lipscomb & Company say about it, too, and 
I know they are smart men. 

Methodist. To be sure ! but let us read the first 
part of verse 28 again, as you did not seem to get 
that point : " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, 
and to us." So you see the Holy Ghost was in the 
work done in that conference, and we see also that 
this conference in Jerusalem heard the report of Bar- 
nabas and Paul in regard to the work done by them 
since they were sent out by the conference held at 
Antioch in Syria, for "all the multitude kept silence, 
and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring 
what miracles and wonders God had wrought among 
the Gentiles by them." They also settled the ques- 
tion about circumcision which was submitted to them 
by the church at Antioch, and then they sent the 
preachers to their works, and "when they were dis- 
missed," the preachers sent out "came to Antioch," 
"gathered the multitude together," "delivered the 
epistle" sent to them by the conference (verse 30); 
and the work went on in a systematic way. 

Campbellite. Sent out the preachers, indeed! Yes, 
they did send four preachers, but your Methodist 
Conferences send out hundreds. "What right have 
you for so doing? 

Methodist The right to send four preachers, or all 
they had to send, is the right to send four thousand, 
if the Conference has them to send. 

Campbellite. But you say that Paul and Barnabas 
reported to the conference at Jerusalem the work 
they had done since they were sent out by the con- 



The Wheel. 



27 



ference held at Antioch in Syria. Now, I don't be- 
lieve they were sent out. They went of their own 
accord. God never gave any conference the right 
to send men like yon Methodists do. You can't show 
it, sir. 

Methodist Let us see. We will turn to Acts xiii. 
1, 2: "Now there were in the church that was at 
Antioch certain prophets and teachers. ... As 
they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy 
Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
work whereunto I have called them." Here we see 
(1) that the Holy Ghost had called Barnabas and 
Saul to a certain work; (2) that the Holy Ghost 
said to the prophets and teachers, " Separate me Bar- 
nabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called 
them." So the Holy Ghost would not send these 
men out without the indorsement of the conference 
of "apostles and teachers." I believe you do not 
believe in the Holy Ghost calling men to special 
work, and speaking to "apostles and teachers," in 
conference assembled, telling them who he has called 
to such and such special work nowadays, do you? 

Campbellite. No, I don't. That was in the days of 
miracles, and I wish you Methodists would stop so 
much foolishness. 

Methodist. The whole of the Bible was written in 
the days of miracles, and don't you think it would be 
a good thing if we were to renounce it all on that 
account? I thought the Acts of the Apostles was 
all right with you and your brethren. What is the 
matter with you? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, the Acts is all right on water 
baptism, but I think the Holy Spirit does not speak 



28 



The Wheel. 



to people now directly as he did to those " apostles 
and teachers" at Antioch, and I do not believe he 
directly calls men to preach, or to any special work, 
nor do I believe that he directs the doings of a 
Methodist Conference as he did the work of the 
"apostles and teachers" at Antioch; no sir, that I 
don't. 

Methodist. Peter says: "Of a truth I perceive that 
God is no respecter of persons" (Acts x. 34); "I 
am the Lord, I change not" (Mai. iii. 6); "Every 
good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and 
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom 
is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 
i. 17); "God is not a man, that he should lie" (Num. 
xxiii. 19). Here we have (1) "God is no respecter of 
persons;" (2) "I am the Lord, I change not;" (3) 
" With him is no variableness, neither shadow of turn- 
ing;" (4) God does not lie. And yet you think God 
does not deal with his people now as he did in 
former ages — that is, God did respect the "apostles 
and teachers" at Antioch enough to call them to 
special work, and speak to them by the Holy Ghost; but 
he does not and will not now deal with his apostles and 
teachers in the same way. Then you think God has 
changed, do you? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't think the Holy Ghost 
has anything to do nowadays with sending men as 
you Methodists send them out from your Confer- 
ences. That is man's work, and it takes away the 
individual rights of men. 

Methodist. Then we will go back to Acts xiii. and 
see just how the "apostles and teachers" did in their 
conference: "And when they had fasted and prayed, 



The Wheel. 



29 



and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." 
(Verse 3.) Now, remember the Holy Ghost had 
said to these apostles and teachers, ' ' Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
called them" (verse 2); and this third verse tells 
just how they did it. Now is it wrong for a confer- 
ence of " apostles and teachers" in the Methodist 
Church to do just as that conference of " apostles 
and teachers" did at Antioch? 

CampbellUe. Y-e-s, I think it is, for I don't believe 
the Holy Ghost has anything to do with your Meth- 
odist Conferences sending preachers all over the 
country as they do. I hate such business. 

Methodist. Tou think it is wrong for us to follow 
the example of the " apostles and teachers " then, 
and you hate such business. The devil hates such 
business, too; but we will go on and see what 
the Holy Ghost had to do with the sending of 
the preachers from the Antioch conference to their 
work. "So they, being sent forth by the Holy 
Ghost, departed unto Seleucia." (Verse 4.) We 
have seen that the Holy Ghost told the " apostles 
and teachers " what to do while they w r ere in confer- 
ence, and they did it, and what they did was said to 
be done "by the Holy Ghost," and you think it is 
wrong for us in our Conferences to follow the ex- 
ample of that conference at Antioch. Whom must 
we follow? 

Campbellite. Why, just follow — I was going to say 
that you know I don't believe in any Church organ- 
ization beyond "independent local churches," and 
that is what Brother F. D. Srygley says about it in 
the Gospel Advocate of January 17, 1895, and he says, 



30 



The Wheel. 



too, that "the Advocate feels no interest in nor sym- 
pathy for any religions party which does not include 
all Christians." What do you think of that? 

Methodist. Just this: If there is no religious " par- 
ties," as Brother Srygley calls them, except " inde- 
pendent local churches," and no one of these " inde- 
pendent local churches " contains all Christians, then 
the Gospel Advocate "feels no interest in nor sympathy 
for any" independent local church. It is very strange, 
indeed, that the Gospel Advocate Company favors 
"independent local churches," and then " feels no in- 
terest in nor sympathy for any" one of such parties 
because it does not contain all Christians. 

Campbell ite. Y-e-s 5 that's what you say; but now 
be honest and tell me what you think of the many 
arguments made by the Gospel Advocate Company, 
or organization, against general religious organization. 

Methodist. Well, sir; it only amuses me to see that 
organization making such desperate organized efforts 
to put down organizations. 

Cdmpbellite. I believe I wish to change the subject 
a little. You know you have stewards, deacons, eld- 
ers, and bishops in your Church organization, and I 
say it is all unscriptural. Now give me chapter and 
verse for all this, will you? Xo, you won't! 

Methodist. That is a considerable jump you wish 
to make all at once; but if you are getting tired of 
the Conference work, we will take up 

STEWARDS. 

Stewards are mentioned several times in the Old 
Testament and several times in the Xew Testament, 
We are all stewards in one sense, but the Bible 



The Wheel. 



31 



speaks of those who had the management of the 
money affairs of a king, or of a family, as stewards. 
Take 1 Chronicles xxviii. 1: "And David assembled 
all the princes of Israel, . . . and the stewards 
over all the substance and possession of the king." 
In Luke xvi. 1-7 we have an account of a steward 
who called up his lord's debtors and allowed them to 
credit their bills, and this shows that the steward 
controlled the money affairs of his lord. Now we 
have stewards who control the money affairs of the 
Church. Is this wrong? 

Campbettite. It looks to me like that would hinder 
personal consecration and Christian effort. 

Methodist It is the duty of our stewards to see each 
member of the church once a quarter and encourage 
them to do their duty toward supporting the church, 
and please tell me how that could hinder personal con- 
secration and Christian effort. 

Campbettite. TT-e-1-1, I don't hardly know, but that 
looks like organized effort, and Brother Srygley and 
Company say organized effort hinders personal con- 
secration and Christian effort. 

Methodist. Out of church money widows are to be 
cared for, and when the Grecians complained against 
the Hebrews because their widows were neglected, the 
twelve apostles said: "Look ye out . . . seven 
men of honest report, . . . whom we may appoint 
over this business." (Acts vi. 3.) "And they chose 
Stephen, . . . and Philip, and Prochorus, and 
Xicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Xicolas. 55 
(Verse 5.) Doesn't that look a little like organization, 
and don't you think it strange the apostles did not see 
that by this organized effort personal consecration 



32 



The Wheel. 



and individual Christian effort would be greatly hin- 
dered? Isn't it a pity that you and the Gospel Ad- 
vocate organization were not there to show the apostles 
the trouble they were bringing on the Church, and the 
great misfortune that would befall personal consecra- 
tion and Christian effort by poor short-sighted mor- 
tals following their example in after years? 

Campbellite. Pshaw ! You want to ran everything 
to extremes. You know the office of steward in the 
Methodist Church tempts men to steal, and any man 
can abuse the office if he is mean enough to do so. 

Methodist. Any citizen of the United States can 
abuse his citizenship — can lie, swear, cheat, steal, de- 
fraud, and murder — but does that prove it is wrong to 
be a citizen of the United States? 

Campbellite. N-o, I reckon not ; but I d-o-n-'t — 

Methodist. Hold a moment. " Moreover it is re- 
quired in stewards that a man be found faithful." 
(1 Cor. iv. 2. ) This applies to all stewards, and it is a 
fact that Methodist stewards, with few exceptions, are 
great lovers of the Church, and faithful in the dis- 
charge of all the duties of their office. They love the 
preachers and look after their support with such dili- 
gence that the ministers can give themselves "constant- 
ly to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." ( Acts vi. 
4.) Do you think we are wrong in having stewards? 

Campbellite. I — I d-o-n-'t know, but it looks like too 
much organization to me, though it does look like the 
stewards relieve the preachers of worldly care, and 
that gives the preachers more time for prayer, medi- 
tation, and study. Yes, that looks like a good ar- 
rangement if it isn't too much organization. But 
what about your 



The Wheel, 



33 



DEACONS? 

Methodist Deacons are minis t rants, those who 
minister, subordinates. "Likewise must the deacons 
be grave, not double-tongued,' not given to much wine, 
not greedy of filthy lucre ; holding the mystery of the 
faith in a pure conscience." (1 Tim. iii. 8, 9. ) Here 
we see that deacons must be " grave," not light, friv- 
olous men ; 2 ) not double-tongued— that is, not talk 
one way to a man's face and another way behind his 
back; (3 ) "Holding the mystery of the faith" — that 
is, they must be thoroughly regenerated men, main- 
taining the " mystery of the faith in a pure con- 
science." So you see from these requirements that 
the Church should be very careful who she puts into 
the office of a deacon. 

Ca mpbell He. Church put anybody into an office, 
indeed! I wish you Methodists would stop talking 
about offices, and officers in the Church. That sounds 
like political affairs. 

Methodist. Maybe it does to you. but take verse 10: 
"And let these also first be proved; then let them 
use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.'' 
1. The Church must first prove those whom they 
would make deacons. 2. If they are found blame- 
less, "then let them use the office of a deacon." God 
has given his Church the characteristics of a man 
suitable for the office of a deacon, and made it the 
duty of the Church to elect such, men to that office. 
Don't get scared at the words "office" and ''officers," 
brother. 

Cdmpbellite. Somehow I had not noticed that; but 
tell me how you prove a man before you give him 
that office. 
3 



34 



The Wheel. 



Methodist. Very well. T\~ken a truly regenerated 
man claims that God has " revealed his Son" in him, 
that he "might preach him to others " | Gal. i. 16 | 3 if 
his daily walk is consistent with his profession, we li- 
cense him to preach. If he wishes to join the Confer- 
ence, we take him on trial, give him work for two years, 
with certain lessons to study. Now, if he does faith- 
ful work and lives a blameless life these two years, 
and stands an approved examination on his studies, 
we give him the office of a deacon. Is there anything 
wrong in that? 

Campbellite. I don't know, b-u-t what right have 
you to prove them in such way as that? 

Methodist. "Let these also first be proved," says 
the Word, and if the Bible gives any specific rule for 
proving them, will you be kind enough to give me 
chapter and verse for it ? 

Gampbellite. TT-e-1-1. I don't remember such a rule 
just now, but — 

Methodist Hold a moment, brother. If God en- 
joins it on his Church to prove men before making 
them deacons, and gives the Church no rule by which 
she is to prove them, is it not plain that he has left 
it to the Church to adopt her own rule, provided her 
rule does not violate his law? 

Campbellite. I am not going to say, b-u-t — 

Methodist. Just another word, please. Can you 
show where our rule violates the law of God. or can 
you give us a better rule ? 

CampheUite. I don't know that I can just now, for 
if any man will give himself up to a bishcp and his 
cabinet to send him where they please, and they send 
him for two years to some backwoods circuit or mis- 



The Wheel. 



35 



sion, and he behaves well under such treatment, I 
should count him pretty well proved. 

Methodist. Then you don't find much objection to 
our way of making deacons, do you? 

CampbelHte. I will not say just now, but I wish to 
hear what you have to say about 

ELDERS. 

Methodist. Elders are mentioned in the Bible a 
great many times as great persons ; then they are 
mentioned as aged persons, or rather, great persons 
are often mentioned as elders, so are aged persons ; 
and then rulers in the Church are mentioned as elders. 
We will consider them as rulers in the Church. " Let 
the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honor, especially they who labor in the word and 
doctrine." (1 Tim. v. 17.) Here we learn (1) that 
elders are rulers in the Church ; (2) that those who 
"rule well" are " counted worthy of double honor" 
— not abusing their office, but faithfully looking after 
all the interests under their care; (3) " especially 
those who labor in the word and doctrine" — that is, 
preach the gospel faithfully. The Church should 
liberally support such elders, for the next verse says: 
"For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the 
ox that treadeth out the corn, And, The laborer is 
worthy of his reward." 

CampbelHte. And you think the elders mentioned 
in the verse you read were preachers? Well, how do 
you Methodists make your elders, I mean your elders 
who preach? 

Methodist. We will go back to 1 Timothy iii. 13, and 
read what is said about deacons who use their office 



36 



The Wheel. 



well: "For they that have used the office of a deacon 
well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great 
boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." When 
a deacon uses bis office well for two years, doing all 
the work of a faithful minister of the gospel, and 
stands an approved examination on all the lessens 
given him, he has " purchased to himself a good de- 
gree," and we give him the office of an elder. Is 
there anything wrong in that? 

CampbelUte. W-e-1-1, I don't believe one man has 
any right to rule others in the Church. I believe in 
personal consecration and individual effort in all re- 
ligious work ; and I think general organization, which 
necessitates officers of different rank and authority, 
hinders such consecration and effort, and I am op- 
posed to your organization out and out. 

Methodist Please tell me just what you do favor, 
then, will you? 

CampbelUte. Certainly I will. I believe in inde- 
pendent local churches, organized on a New Testa- 
ment basis, but no general organization, for that always 
brings in trouble and confusion. 

Methodist. As you seem to oppose general organi- 
zation so much, 1 will spend a little time on this point 
When God would bring his Church out of Egypt, he 
said to Moses and Aaron: " Bring out the children of 
Israel from the land of Egypt according to their ar- 
mies. 53 (Ex. vi. 26.) Again God said of this army: 
"That I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring 
forth 

MINE ARMIES." (Ex. vii. 4.) 
Again, it is stated that "the Lord did bring the 
children of Israel out of the ]and of Egypt 



The Wheel. 



37 



BY THEIR ARMIES." (Ex. xii. 51.) 

Will you please tell me why God did not say, " I 
will bring them out by personal consecration and in- 
dividual effort?" 

Campbellite. Q, you must remember that there 
were about eighteen hundred thousand Israelites to 
be brought out o£ Egypt, and I — 

Methodist. Yes, I remember ; and according to your 
idea the correct way would have been to organize 
them into little "independent local armies," and not 
attempt to move so large a body under one grand or- 
ganization, lest "personal consecration and individual 
effort " be hindered. Don't you think the Lord made 
a mistake in moving his armies in one body? 

Campbellite. But how do you know this grand army 
was under one general organization? 

Methodist. It is perfectly clear that it was. Turn to 
Numbers x. 1-10, and you will see one of the most per- 
fect systems for governing this army. Notice: 1. 
The Lord commanded Moses to make two silver 
trumpets. (Verses 1, 2.) 2. "The sons of Aaron, 
the priests," were appointed to blow with the trum- 
pets. (Yerse 8.) 3. "And if they blow but with 
one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the 
thousands 'of Israel, shall gather themselves unto 
thee [Moses]." (Verse 4.) 4. If both trumpets were 
blown, "all the assembly shall assemble themselves 
to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
tion." (Verse 3.) 5. "When ye blow an alarm, 
then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go for- 
ward." (Verse 5.) 6. "When ye blow an alarm 
the second time, then the camps that lie on the south 
side shall take their journey." ( Verse 6. ) 7. " They 



38 



The Wheel. 



shall blow an alarm for their journeys." (Verse 6.) 
8. " But when the congregation is to be gathered to- 
gether, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm.'' 
(Verse 7.) 9. " And if ye go to war . . . against 
the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an 
alarm with the trumpets." (Verse 9.) 10. "Also 
in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, 
and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow 
with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over 
the sacrifices of your peace offerings. ... I am 
the Lord." (Verse 10. ) Now, brother, honor bright, 
don't that look like perfect, general organization ; or 
does it look like independent local organization? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, to be right honest, I must con- 
fess it looks very much like general organization, and 
the strange thing to me is, God planned the whole 
thing and commanded Moses to put it into effect. 
That looks strange to me, for I know Brothers D. 
Lipscomb, S. D. Srygley, and the Gospel Advocate 
Company are all smart men, and they teach that gen- 
eral organization hinders personal consecration and 
individual effort. 

Methodist Just so ; but a ten-year-old child ought 
to know that a large army cannot move without the 
direct, personal, individual effort of each soldier in the 
army. The general order was given by God through 
Moses to the people, and this order was obeyed by an 
individual, personal effort of each soldier. Isn't that 
plain ? 

Campbellite. Yes, sir ; that seems to be plain, but 
you did not say all you wanted to about elders, did 
you? 

Methodist No, sir. "And from Miletus he [Paul] 



The Wheel. 



39 



sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the 
Church." (Acts xx. 17.) Paul said to these elders: 
" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
overseers." (Verse 28.) Here we see the Holy 
Ghost makes elders overseers in the Church of God, 
so we Methodists are not the greatest sinners in the 
world because we agree with the Holy Ghost, are we? 

Campbellite. I believe we will drop the subject of 
elders, if you please; but I would like to hear you on 

BISHOPS. 

I am sure you are very wrong about bishops. 

Methodist. Very well; bat what objection have you 
to our bishops. 

Campbellite. Well, sir; I object to any set of men 
taking the general oversight of God's Church, acting 
as overseers or general inspectors of the Church; 
that doesn't suit my notion of things at all. 

Methodist. I am not after your notion of things, 
brother, I am after the truth; so we will look up 
the meaning of the original word — here it is: episco- 
pos, "an inspector, overseer; . . . guardian, one 
who superintends and provides for the welfare of any 
one; an overseer, superintendent, bishop, a chief of- 
ficer in the Christian Church." (Greek Lexicon, 
W. Greenfield.) Let us now turn to 1 Timothy iii., 
and read: " This is a true saying, If a man desire the 
office of bishop, he desireth a good work." (Verse 
1. ) Here we learn that, whatever the office of a 
bishop is, it is "a good work" and no man can fill the 
office x^roperly but a truly good man, hence the fol- 
lowing qualifications are required before a man is 



40 



The Wheel. 



eligible to the office of bishop. Verses 2, 3: "A 
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one 
wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hos- 
pitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, 
not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, 
not covetous." A man with all these qualifications 
can be trusted in any office the Church can give him, 
can he not? 

Gampbellite. Yes, but I don't believe the Church 
has any right to give men as high places in the 
Church as you give your bishops. It is too great a 
temptation to pride, vanity, and tyranny over sub- 
ordinates in the ministry. 

Methodist. I must acknowledge that there is great 
danger in that direction, and the inspired apostle 
saw that danger, hence he said: "Not a novice, lest 
being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemna- 
tion of the devil.' 3 The Church must not put young, 
inexperienced men into the office of bishop, but men 
thoroughly tried with much experience in the ministry. 

Campbellite. You'll never get me to give in to your 
idea of bishops. Why, it would be terrible for a man 
to be lifted up to so high an office by the Church 
and then be insnared by the temptations of that 
office, fall from grace, and be lost! 

Methodist. Did you know that Judas was once a 
bishop, and that he was made a bishop by Christ? 

Campbellite. Just the idea of Judas being a bishop 
— made a bishop by Christ! You must be crazy. 

Methodist. Don't get excited, brother! We will go 
to Acts i.j and see if we can find any light on the sub- 
ject. Speaking of Judas, the divine writer says: 
"His bishopric let another take." (Verse 20.) Mr. 



The Wheel. 



41 



Webster says: "Bishopric, a diocese; the district over 
which the jurisdiction of a bishop extends.'' That 
makes it plain enough that Judas was a bishop, does 
it not ? 

Campbell Ire. W-e-1-1, it does seem so, but I never 
noticed that before. Judas a bishop— made a bishop 
by Christ; and then Judas fell, and finally put an 
end to his own life! 

llethodist Yes, sir; that is all true; and when the 
apostles and disciples (in all ""about a hundred and 
twenty/' verse 15) wanted another bishop to take the 
place "from which Judas by transgression fell'' 
(verse 25) "they appointed two, Joseph . . . and 
Matthias. And they prayed, and said., Thou, Lord, 
which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether 
of these two thou hast chosen. . . . And they gave 
forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and 
he was numbered with the eleven apostles." (Terses 
23-26. ) Matthias was not a novice, for Peter said: 
"Wherefore of these men which have companied 
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and 
out among us, . . . must one be ordained to be 
a witness with us of his resurrection." (Terses 21, 
22.) This was the first official act of a Conference 
after Christ's ascension — the election of a bishop. 
-They committed the matter to God in prayer, and 
then cast their lots, trusting God to direct them, and 
the "dot fell on Matthias." Isn't that clear? 

Gampbellite. "W-e-1-1. it may be to you, but I don't 
like your way of making bishops sort of supreme 
judges in the Church. 

Methodist. You don't? Now, if Judas was a bishop, 
were not all of the twelve bishops? 
3* 



42 



The Wheel. 



Campbellite. I — I — suppose they were all on an 
equality, so far as their office was concerned. 

Methodist. Now let us read Luke xxii. 29, 30. Here 
Jesus says to his apostles: "And I appoint unto you 
a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 
that ye may eat and drink at my table in my king- 
dom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." Here we see (1) that Jesus appointed to his 
bishops "a kingdom" (who ever heard of a kingdom 
composed of "independent local organizations?);" 

(2 ) that they should eat at his table in his kingdom; 

(3) that they should "sit cn thrones judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel. 5 ' Since the days of Jacob the 
Church of God has been propagated under the name 
of the twelve tribes, as shown in "Grub Ax." So we 
see here that Jesus appointed bishops to thrones, 
judges, in his Church. Are not those who occupy 
thrones in a kingdom the highest officers in the king- 
dom? 

Campbellite, Certainly they are, and I suppose you 
mean to say that bishops are the highest officers 
in the Church of God. Is that what you mean to 
say? 

Methodist. I just mean to give you what the Bible 
says about it, and that is the way the Bible makes it. 
You say, "Follow Christ," do you not? 

Campbellite. Tes, sir; that is what we teach when 
we stand o.n the bank of a stream of water just ready 
to lead one who wants to obey the gospel down into 
the water. Yes, we cry loudly then, "Follow Christ; " 

but I— I— 

Methodist. O yes, I see now. "When you are about 
to dip some one into the water you cry out, " Follow 



The Wheel. 



43 



Christ;" but when we follow Christ and Lis apostles 
in electing bishops to the highest office in the Church, 
you cry out with horror, " Unscriptural ! too much 
organization, destroying personal consecration and 
hindering individual effort." Is that it? 

Campbellite. Now, look here ; you seem to want to 
ridicule me, and I won't take it. You know we don't 
believe in your Methodist bishops taking the highest 
office in the Church, and sitting as judges over the 
Church. Xo, sir; that we don't 

Methodist. By a certain class many objections were 
raised against the judges over Israel in olden times, 
and your objections only prove that poor humanity is 
the same now that it was in the days of Korah, Da- 
than, and Abiram. (See Num. xvi. ) But I wish to 
call your attention again to the third chapter of First 
Timothy. Ton remember that I gave you some of 
the characteristics of a bishop as they are recorded 
in that chapter, and those I gave you showed that he 
must be a thoroughly good man, but that is not all — 
he must have ability as a ruler. Bead verses 4 and 5: 
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his 
children in subjection with all gravity (for if a man 
know not how to rule his own house, how shall he 
take care of the Church of God?)." Xow, will you 
be kind enough to tell me why Paul refers to his ca- 
pacity to rule well as one of the essential qualifications 
to his eligibility to the office of a bishop if a bishop 
is not to rule in the Church? 

Campbellite. W-e-l-l, I don't know that I can tell just 
now. 

Methodist. Ton certainly see that there is no point 
in what the apostle says if a bishop has no authority 



44 



The Wheel. 



to rule in the Church. Notice his language again. 
After he speaks of a bishop ruling his own family, he 
says: "For if a man know not how to rule his own 
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 
The idea is, if he is a failure in his family govern- 
ment, he would be a failure in Church government, 
and therefore not suitable for a bishop. Isn't that 
plain enough? 

Campbellite. I — I must confess that it does look 
that way. 

Methodist. Then you don't think we are "sinners 
above all men " because we have bishops who fill the 
chief offices in the Church, do you? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I reckon not, but it looks like 
giving men a place in the Church thai will enable 
them to impose on their subordinates in the ministry 
if they wish to do so. Don't you think so? 

Methodist Certainly I do; and that is just why the 
apostle was so careful to give all the characteristics 
of a man suitable for the office of a bishop. Now 
read carefully all of these characteristics again, and 
tell me ; do you believe any man who has all these 
traits and maintains them through life will use his 
authority or position to impose on any one, even the 
most obscure? 

Campbellite. Of course not; let me see. "A bishop 
then must be blameless, . . . vigilant, sober, of good 
behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given 
to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but 
patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth 
well his own house, having his children in subjection 
with all gravity (for if a man know not how to rule 
his own house, how shall he take care of the church 



The Wheel. 



45 



of God?). Not a novice." (1 Tim. iii. 1-6. ) I must 
confess that I would not be afraid, to trust such a man 
as that all along the line, bat do you think all of your 
bishops prove to be just such men from the time they 
are elected bishops to the day of their death? Honor 
bright, now._ 

Methodist. Not in every case. Possibly most of 
them at some time, under some circumstances, depart 
a little from the Golden Rule. Remember, Judas 
was put into this high office by Christ, and he fell and 
was finally lost, but Christ did not do away with the 
office and disband his college of bishops on that ac- 
count. Peter denied his Lord, lied and swore to it, 
but repented; others may have mad.e mistakes, but 
notwithstanding all this, Jesus appointed them to a 
kingdom, gave them the highest place in his king- 
dom (Church), even thrones, and the right to judge 
his people. (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) So if some of our 
bishops do wrong, that does not argue that the office 
of bishop should be done away, but that we should be 
very careful to measure the men whom we elect to 
that office by the rule Paul gives us, and that we pray 
for them daily, and " esteem them very highly for 
their work's sake." 

Campbellite. Somehow I can't help thinking that an 
office in the Church which gives men so much, author- 
ity, and so much advantage over other men, ought to 
be abandoned. 

Methodist. What do you think of the office of Pres- 
ident, governor, and judge in our country? Have not 
all of these offices been abused by unfaithful men? 
Indeed, do you know of any office in Church or State 
that has not been abused? Do you think it would be 



46 



The Wheel. 



well to abandon all offices and all government because 
men put in these offices to administer the law are often 
unfaithful? 

CampbeUite. That is a very different thing. Men in 
civil offices are under the laws of the civil govern- 
ment, and can be punished for wrongdoing. Don't 

you see? 

Methodist. Yes, I see; and men in ecclesiastic of- 
fices are under ecclesiastic laws, and can be punished 
for wrongdoing also. 

Gampbellite. W-e-1-1, I must say you Methodists 
have mere Scripture for your organization and itin- 
erant ministry than I thought you had, but I don't 
like your way of sending preachers. Just think of 
taking a man up and sending him to a' mission, cir- 
cuit, or station, without consulting him about it. 
That doesn't suit me; no, sir. 

Methodist Well, can you show that Paul, Barna- 
bas, Judas, and Silas were consulted about their ap- 
pointments before they were sent out by the Confer- 
ences held at Antioch and Jerusalem, as already 
shown you in Acts xiii. 1-4 and xv. 25-27? If so, 
please give me chapter and verse. 

Campbellite. W-e-L-1, I don't remember any verse 
that says they were consulted, but it looks like preach- 
ers would starve if a man with a family is just sent 
anywhere without consulting him first. I'd be afraid 
to risk that plan. 

Methodist. You would? Did you ever hear of a 
Methodist preacher starving? 

Campbellite. No, I believe not; b-u-t I— 

Methodist. Hold a moment. I have shown you that 
the itinerant plan of sending preachers is God's plan. 



The Wheel. 



47 



Do you think God would make a plan that would 
starve his ministers? 

Campbellite^ It doesn't look like he would, b-u-t 
you— 

Methodist. Just a moment. Do you know any bet- 
ter plan for sending the gospel '' into all the world 53 
than ours is? 

Campbell ite. I must confess I do not; and it seems 
strange to me, too, for the Gospel Advocate organi- 
zation, and our brethren generally, teach that the 
whole plan is wrong. 

Methodist. I know they do, and the Gospel Advo- 
cate institution often publishes such notices as this: 
" Brother A. is now ready for evangelistic work, and 
any church desiring his services would do well to 

write to him at No. Street C." Was that the 

apostolic plan? Can you give me chapter and verse 
for it? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, no; and I am getting to think 
that institution is doing a good many things they have 
no chapter and verse for. 

Methodist. Just so; 1 rather think they would fail 
to find chapter and verse for such an institution or 
organization as the Gospel Advocate Publishing Com- 
pany, association, or society. But I was going to say, 
you have noticed that all Methodist churches have 
pastors, while in your Church many of your church- 
es have no pastor, and often have much trouble to 
get some one to preach for you. 

Campbellite. Yes, but we get the one we want. If 
I get a man tc do work for me, I want to say who he 
shall be, don't you see? 

Methodist Yes, I see; but I have always believed 



48 



The Wheel. 



God's ministers were doing God's work, and not 
yours; so God sends them where he wants them to 
go. Besides, you do not always get the preacher you 
want most, for often you write to your first choice and 
he is engaged, or wants more money than you can pay, 
and sometimes you write to the fourth man before 
you get a preacher, so you often get fourth choice, or 
none. So you can't improve on God's plan. 

Campbellite. I am getting tired of this subject any- 
way, and I must say you have changed my views on 
some things, bat I am not quite ready to give in to 
your views yet. Somehow it will run in my mind 
that independent local organization must be the Bible 
plan, or our leading men certainly would not hold to 
that plan. Ton see we do not believe there is any or- 
ganized whole which includes these independent local 
organizations. 

Methodist. In 1 Samuel xvii. 26, we read about the 

"ARMIES OF THE LIVING GOD." 

Now, armies are composed of individuals organized 
into companies, companies organized into regiments, 
regiments organized into brigades, brigades organized 
into divisions, and on up to the grand army, with 
"captains over thousands, captains over hundreds, 
captains over fifties, and captains over tens." (Dent, 
i. 15. ) Then we read again : " And the general of the 
king's army was Joab." (1 Chron. xxvii. 34.) Now, 
how could the "living God" have an army on your 
plan of "independent local organizations?" 

Campbellite. W-e-U, I don't know exactly, b-u-t 
I— 

Methodist. Tes, no doubt ; but we read in Ezekiel 



The Wheel. 



49 



i. 15-20, speaking of the work of the Church of God 
in the earth, the prophet says: "Behold one wheel 
upon the earth by the living creatures, . . . And 
their appearance and their work was, as it were, a 
wheel in the middle of a wheel. . . . And when 
the living creatures went, the wheels went by them, 
s . . for the spirit of the living creature was in 
the wheels." Here is perfect organization, perfect 
agreement between the wheels and the one great 
" wheel upon the earth 5 ' — general organization and 
suborganization under it, or " a wheel within a wheel." 
Now, will you tell me how you could make a wheel by 
your plan ? "For instance, an independent local hub, 
sixteen independent local spokes, two independent 
local fellies, and one independent local tire, no one 
of these having any connection with any or all of 
the others by general organization. Tell me, will 
you? 

Campbellite. W-eJ-1, I don't see just how it could 
be done, b-u-t — 

Methodist. Then maybe you can tell me how we 
could have the 

UNITED STATES . 
by your plan. Say, independent local districts, inde- 
pendent local counties, and independent local states, 
none of these independent local organizations having 
any connection with any or all of the rest by general 
organization, how do you say we could have the United 
States Government by your plan? 

Campbellite. I believe I will just give it up; but I 
notice you have been jotting dotra our conversation. 
Will you let me have it till we meet again? I wish 
to look over all of your points with 
4 



50 



The Wheel, 



GREAT CARE. 

Methodist. Certainly. And will you give me your 
decision when you get through? 

Campbellite. Yes, sir ; I will. Good-by. 

LAST MEETING. 

Methodist. Good morning, brother. I hope you are 
now ready to give me your conclusion, as you have 
had several days to weigh the matter, and I hope you 
will be perfectly frank, and feel free to utter your 
whole mind on the subject. 

Campbell ite. I am ready, sir; for I have gone over 
all the ground carefully, weighing every text you used, 
and I am surprised to find everything in favor of or- 
ganization, nothing opposing it 

Methodist. Will you be kind enough to give me the 
points we have made in regular order while I write 
them down? 

Gampbellife. Yes, sir; you showed (1) that Joseph 
by inspiration of God effected general organization 
in Egypt to save the people from starvation (Gen. 
xli. 33-35); (2) that the people were saved by this 
organization; (3) that God appointed Moses as 
leader of the people when he would bring them out 
of Egypt; (4) that Moses called together the elders 
of the people and organized them for the work; (5) 
that so perfect was this organization, when the Pass- 
over was to be observed by about eighteen hundred 
thousand people, it was only necessary for Moses, 
the bishop or leader, to call the elders of the people 
together and instruct them, and the work was done 
(Ex. xii. 21); (6) that after leaving Egypt Moses 
completed the organization for the government of 



The Wheel. 



51 



God's people by appointing ''rulers of thousands, 
rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of 
tens" (Ex. xviii 25, 26); (7) that the God of the Old 
Testament is the God of the New Testament; (8) 
that God does not change; (9) that we Campbell- 
ites talk like there were two Gods, one of the Old 
and the other of the New Testament; (10) that God 
always appointed his own prophets, priests, and 
kings; (11) that he protected them against usurp- 
ers; (12) that Solomon organized the workmen, one 
hundred and fifty thousand men, when he would 
build the temple of the Lord; (13) that he appointed 
over them three thousand, and six hundred overseers 
(2 Chron. ii. 2); (11) that organization was God's 
order in Old Testament days; (15) that he gave or- 
ders as to how Israel should pitch their tents; (16) 
also the order in which the army should move; (17) 
that Solomon gave the exact number that should 
bear burdens, hew in the mountains, and oversee; 
(18) that God demanded that his Church should be 
supported in a systematic way, and demanded tithes 
for that purpose (Lev. xxvii. 30, 32); (19) that Paul 
takes a human body as an illustration of the Church 
or body of Christ (1 Cor. xii. 26); (20) that no hand, 
foot, eye, nor ear has the right to proclaim itself an 
independent local organization, having no connection 
with, and in no way under the control of the general 
organization of the body; (21) that God set in the 
Church apostles, prophets, teachers, helps, govern- 
ments, as the various members are set in the human 
body; (22) that Jesus organized for his work on 
earth (Mark iii. 13, 14); (23) that he appointed to 
his apostles a kingdom, and gave them thrones — made 



52 



The Wheel. 



them judges (Luke xxii. 29, 30); (24) tliat Jesus fol- 
lowed the Father's plans as a God of order; (25) 
that God is the Author of general government (Rom. 
xiii. 1-6); (28) that the apostles, elders, and teach- 
ers held conferences (Acts xiii. 1-6); (27) that they 
sent out preachers from these conferences (Acts xv. 
22); (28) that the Holy Ghost directed these con- 
ferences in sending the preachers (Acts xiii. 2-5, xv. 
28); (29) that the apostolic Church had stewards in 
it (Acts vi. 3); (30) it also had deacons in it (1 Tim. 
iii. 8-10); (31) it had elders in it, and these elders 
were preachers (1 Tim. v. 17); (32) it had bishops 
in it also; (33) that Judas was a bishop in the 
Church (Acts i. 20); (34) that the first official act of 
the apostles and brethren after Christ's death was to 
elect a bishop to take the place from which Judas 
fell (Acts i. 23-26); (35) that all the apostles were 
bishops; (36) that Jesus appointed his, bishops to 
the highest offices in his Church (Luke xxii. 29, 30); 
(37) that there could be no such thing as Ezekiel's 
" wheel within a wheel" by our plan of independent 
local organization; (38) that there could be no such 
thing as the army of the living God by our plan; 
(39) that our plan would destroy the Government of 
the United States; (40) that we have no showing in 
the Bible for our plan, but that— 

Methodist. There, brother; that will do. Now give 
me your conclusion. 

Gampbellite. Well, sir; I am done with Campbell- 
ism. I see now that all their cant about all Chris- 
tians being united, then their bitter opposition to 
general organization, does not coincide with common 
sense; that if every society is an independent local 



The Wheel. 



53 



organization, having no connection with any other, 
then their whole Church is nothing but divisions 
from end to end — a kiud of every~fellow-for-kiniself 
concern, with an avowed purpose to oppose, fight, 
and ridicule everybody and eve^thing that does not 
do just as they do. Now, I wish to state that I 
slipped quietly into the back part of your church 
last Sunday night and heard you preach, and one 
thing you said showed me plainly why I had not 
been able to see these things before. 

Methodist, What expression do you refer to? 

CampbeUite. You said: "If I teach my child from 
his childhood to manhood that he belongs to all the 
family there is on earth; that we are absolutely right 
and all other families are totally wrong, and he must 
be very careful to keep himself aloof from them and 
constantly oppose, fight, and ridicule them for not 
having a bucket that holds just the same amount of 
water ours holds, what is my boy when he grows up 
to manhood with these ideas firmly fixed in him? 
Nothing but a first-class bigot. It is perfectly natu- 
ral that he should esteem himself more highly than 
he ought, and his neighbor much below his real 
worth. Just so with Churches. When a man gets 
it thoroughly drilled into him that he and all others 
who have been just as deep into the water as he has 
been are the only people on earth who are right, he 
is then a first-class Pharisee or religious bigot, not 
knowing his own religious state and not capable of 
appreciating true piety in those who dp not pro- 
nounce his shibboleth." This set me to thinking, 
and I determined to lay aside ail prejudice and all 
idea of my superiority over others because I had 



54 



The Wheel. 



been a little deeper into the water than they, and I 
can now see that God is the Author of religious or- 
ganization and I am for it. One of the illustrations 
struck me with force also. 

Methodist. Which illustration was it? 

Campbellite. The one where Paul takes a human 
body as an illustration of the Church of Christ. By 
our plan there could be no human being on earth. 
Just think a moment: ten independent local fingers, 
ten independent local toes, two independent local 
arms and hands, two independent local legs and feet, 
two eyes and two ears, one mouth and one nose, one 
head and one body, and thousands of independent 
local hairs — none of these haying any connection with 
any other, nor connected in any way with a general 
organization composing the whole man. Such non- 
sense; I will be guilty of it no more. Think again 
of Moses, without any general organization, going 
round from house to house to get more than a mil- 
lion and a half of people to hold a Passover the same 
night; think of the head of each family saying to 
him: "Who are you? I'll have you to know that I 
am the head of an independent local family, having 
no connection with any other family or organization, 
and what right have you to interfere with my indi- 
vidual affairs?" Without general organization, all 
Egypt would have starved in the famine. Tes, sir; I 
am thoroughly convinced that perfect organization 
is God's order, and that it is the only way to secure 
general individual effort. 

Methodist Was there anything else in my sermon 
that impressed you? v 

Cqmpbellite. Tes, sir; two other points. You said: 



The Wheel. 



55 



"Some one said to me recently, 'Some of the Chris- 
tian brethren are calling you hard names because 
you call them Canipbellites. They are out of humor 
about it. 5 I told the gentleman that my true name 
was John Harmon Nichols, but that the name was 
not all that I had; that it was about the last thing 
about rne, so I would not quarrel with them about 
what they called me. I£ I had nothing but the name, 
I would fight them to the last inch of my strength, if 
they called me by another. Christ was called the 
chief of devils, but he did not quarrel with anybody 
about it, because he had something more than a 
name. Tou will notice when a man has nothing but 
a name he is very sensitive about his name, for that 
is his all." The other point was this: " Some people, 
when they hear a sermon that has no water baptism 
in it, say: 'That man did not preach the gospel. He 
did not tell sinners how to be saved.' Such people 
would reject the preaching of Jesus Christ if he were 
here preaching as he did when he was on earth. His 
great Sermon on the Mount would fall condemned at 
their feet because it had no water in it — no salvation 
for yx)or sinners where there is no water. All of his 
gracious healings and pardons granted to poor sin- 
ners would be bogus in the eyes of such people be- 
cause he did not immerse his subjects in water. 
"With such people Christ would stand no better 
chance now than he stood with the old Pharisees 
who taught that 'except a man be circumcised, he 
cannot be saved.'" That struck me with great 
force, for I believe it is true. The good Lord save 
me from Fhariseeism. 

Methodist. Amen! My brother, always remember 



56 



The Wheel. 



that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth 
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." 
(Gal. vi, 15.) And don't forget that "if any man 
be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are 
passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 
Cor. v. 17.) And "hereby know we that we dwell 
in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his 
Spirit," (1 John iv. 13.) "The Spirit itself bear- 
eth witness with our spirit, that we are the children 
of God." (Rom. viii. 16.) Good-by, my brother; 
"God be with you till we meet again." 

Campbellite. Just one question before we part: 
Please explain Ephesians ii. 21 before I go, and I 
will be obliged. 

Methodist. I thank you for calling my attention to 
that passage; I will read it. Speaking of the Church 
of Christ being built upon the foundation of the 
apostles and prophets, Paul says: "Jesus Christ him- 
self being the chief corner stone; in whom all the 
building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy 
temple in the Lord." That is, as thousands of pieces 
of timber, nails, etc, are organized into one building, 
so the Church of God is composed of the vast multi- 
tudes of good men and women, children and all, or- 
ganized into one grand army of the living God. On 
the plan of independent local sills, sleepers, stud- 
ding, joists, rafters, flooring, ceiling, weather board- 
ing, shingles, and nails, we would not have many 
houses in this country. 

Campbellite. That is so. Thank you. Good-by. 
Peace be with you. 



THE GRUB-AX. 



Errors on Infant Baptism Grubbed Up. 

(57) 



THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 



Having been raised a farmer, and taught the use of the grub-ax, 
1 have been casting about for a similar tool which might be used in 
extracting roots of error from the ecclesiastical field. I have made 
the discovery, and in this little book will reveal the secret, and show 
how the ax has been used in grubbing up the tap-root of a great 
error. The difference between shrubbing and grubbing is very marked 
Shrubbing is taking off a shrub even with the top of the ground, 
leaving the root in the soil to send up five sprouts where it had only 
one before ; while grubbing is taking out every root. The grub-ax 
is a much more valuable tool than the shrub-ax, though the shrub- 
ix is in more general use in the ecclesiastical field. The shrub-as 
ib made of orthodox iron, pointed with sarcasm, and tempered with 
stubbornness. The grub-ax is composed of Bible steel, pointed 
with love, and tempered with the Holy Ghost. This wonderful ax, 
faithfully used, will soon clear the ecclesiastical field of all shrubs 
of ertor ; and where the deepest grubbing is done, there the richest 
plants of truth will grow. Take the grub-ax, brother, and pour in 
tlie licks. Eocks and dirt alike will crumble before it, and the more 
it i<* used the brighter and sharper it wil be. 

Gbubbes 

(59) 



INTRODUCTION. 



In regard to the Church of God there are three theories, viz. : 

1. The Church of God now in the ^ orld is the same Church to 
which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and all the prophets, belonged ; 
and infants have a right to membership in it. 

2. There is no true Church of God now on earth, except the 
Church which was organized by John the Baptist somewhere in the 
wilderness, some time during his public ministry ; and children have 
no right to membership in it. 

3. The only true Church now in the world is the one which Peter 
organized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; and it would be very 
sinful to admit infants to membership in it. 

Now, it requires only about one-half of an ordinary eye to see 
that two of the above theories must be incorrect. Having been con- 
cerned for some time to know which one was correct, I took quite an 
interest in a dialogue I heard on the subject, and propose to give all 
concerned the benefit of what I heard. My hearing is very acute, 
and I think I shall be able to give the dialogue just as it was spoken. 

The parties engaged in the dialogue seemed to be plain, common- 
sense men, and took it after the fashion of " club-fist " — take it off 
or I will knock it off. They did not discuss each other, but they 
did discuss each other's doctrine. 

Yours, with much respect, 

Grubber. 

April 25, 1882. 

(60) 



CHAPTEK II. 



The Grub-ax, 



Campbellite. Good-morning, Brother Methodist ; I am 
happy to meet you this fine day. I hope you can spare 
the time to give me some information in regard to some of 
the doctrines taught by your Church, as they are contrary 
to what I understand the Bible to teach. 

Methodist. Certainly ; I am at your service. 

C. Your book of Discipline says that the "written word 
if God is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our 
faith and practice." In reading my Bible, I fail to find 
any thing said about infant baptism. You Methodists bap- 
tize infants, and I would thank you for the scripture on 
the subject. 

M. You shall have it, provided you will explain one 
thing you said in your sermon last night. You said, 
" When I ask sinners to come and confess Christ and obey 
the gospel, I do not invite them to the Methodist, Baptist, 
or Campbellite Church, but I invite them to Jesus." 
What did you mean by that? 

C. 1 meant, (1) they must believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God ; (2) they must repent of their sins ; (3) 
they must make the good confession; and (4) be baptized. 

M. According to your doctrine, then, no one can come 
to Jesus without water baptism. 

C. That is my doctrine, strictly. 

M. Have all whom Jesus invites to him the right to come ? 
C. Certainly, they have; I suppose no one ever doubted 
that. (61) 



62 



Theological Grub-ax. 



M. I will now give you one verse: "Suffer the little 
children to corne unto me, and forbid them not ; for of 
such is the kingdom of God." (Mark x. 14.) Luke says 
they were "infants" (Luke xviii. 15). Now, we will try 
this scripture by your own theory : (1) You say all whom 
Jesus invited have a right to come ; (2) no one can come 
without water baptism. Conclusion: Infants have been 
invited by Christ, therefore they have a right to baptism, 
according to your own theory. Will you have yours bap- 
tized? 

C. that is not fair ; I did not see what you were driv- 
ing at. Of course I cannot have my children baptized, 
for they are good enough ; they do not need it. 

M. Good enough? Do you think they are as good as 
you are? 

C. They are much better than I am; but baptism would 
bring them into the Church, and that would not do. 

M. Pardon me, please — are you in the Church? 

C. O yes ; I have been baptized, and that brought me in. 

M. Look at your theory again: (1) You are in the 
Church; (2) your children are better than you are; (3 
yet it would be very wrong to bring them into the Church. 
How is that? Are your children too good for the Church? 

C. O no; but they have never sinned, and they do not 
need baptism until after they have committed sin ; and they 
are not entitled to Church-membership until after baptism. 

M. Actual sin, then, is a prerequisite qualification for 
Church-membership, is it ? That would exclude Christ, for 
" he knew no sin." 

C. You do not seem to understand me. I mean that if 
my children were to die, just as they are, without being 
brought by baptism into the Church, they would go to heaven. 

M. Look at your theory again: Your children are bet* 
ter than their father — good enough for heaven — and yet 
they must be denied a place in the Church of God ! Is the 
Church on earth purer than heaven, or what is the matter f 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 63 



C. 1 think the Church on earth and heaven are very dif- 
ferent. 

M. Hear St. Paul on the subject: "For this cause T 
bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." 
(Eph. iii. 14, 15.) Here Paul calls the Church a family, 
part of which is "in heaven/' and part "in earth." 
Now, you think if your children were to die they would be 
recognized as members of the family "in heaven/' but it 
would be wrong to recognize them as members of the 
family "in earth." Suppose a family going West were 
to leave some of the members at the old homestead to 
settle up some business, and then join the other members 
m the West; and suppose a little babe belonging to the 
family was left with those who remain at the original 
home, and the brothers and sisters should say, "We must 
not recognize this babe as a member of the family here, 
for doubtless our new home will be quite different from 
this one, and the babe will be a member of the family when 
it gets to our new home, of course; but it would be wicked 
to recognize it here/' and east the helpless little thing 
off, what would you think of their conduct? 

C. I would think it very cruel and unjust to the child. 

M. Then if (as Paul says) the Church on earth and in 
heaven is one family, and all children are recognized as 
members of the family in heaven, how cruel and unjust 
must it be for you to deny your children membership in 
the family on earth! 

C. I must go now, but I will see you to-morrow, and we will 
htlk about the "setting up of the kingdom," if it suits 

fy II. 

M. That will suit me very well. Good-evening. 

SETTING UP THE KINGDOM. 

C. Now, Brother Methodist, I have come to remain with 
you until we settle this question of infant baptism, and 1 



64 



Theological Grub-ax. 



want it settled by the Bible. You teach that the Chris- 
tian Church is a continuation of the Jewish Church, 01 
kingdom. Now, if that is so, who occupied that throne 
while Christ was on earth? 
M. Jesus Christ. 

C. There, now! I thought so! Didn't you know that 
Christ was not a king until Pentecost; that he went to 
heaven and took his seat on his throne, and sent the Holy 
Ghost at Pentecost to tell Peter that he was on his throne, 
and that it was time for him to set up the kingdom? 
Christ never was a king until Pentecost. 

M. What book is that you have under your arm? 

C. It is the New Testament. You Methodists are such 
folks to dodge, I brought it along to set you right and keep 
you right. 

M. Please turn to Matt. ii. 2, and read will you ? 
C. Yes, sir : " Saying, Where is he that is born King of 
the Jews?" 

M. How is that? Those " wise men" say Jesus was born 
a king, and you say he was not a king till Pentecost. There 
must be a mistake somewhere. 

C. He certainly could not have been a king before his 
kingdom was established, and it was not established until 
Pentecost. 

M. You and those wise men for that. Please hand me 
your Testament. Now, let us see. When Jesus w T as on trial, 
Pilate asked him, "Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, 
Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and 
for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear 
witness unto the truth." (John xviii. 37.) Here Jesus 
acknowledged that he w T as a kingborn to that end, and Pilate 
believed it, for he " wrote a title, and put it on the cross . . . 
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (John xix. 19.) 
And Pilate could not be induced to change this title. 

C. I thought I had read in the Bible that Christ wa# 
made a king at Pentecost. 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



65 



M. Mr. Brent's "Gospel Plan of Salvation" reads that 
way, but Christ's plan does not. 

C. Then, if Christ was a king, what throne did he occupy, 
and over whom did he rule? 

M I will let Isaiah and the apostles answer. "Of the 
increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, 
u}A)n the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from 
henceforth even forever." (Isa. ix. 7.) "And the Lord 
shall give unto him the throne of his father David ; and 
he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." (Luke i. 
32, 33.) We see from these passages, (1) that the throne 
of David was the only throne promised, and the only one 
given to Jesus; (2) that of the increase of his government 
and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David, 
and upon his kingdom; (3) that he should reign over the 
house of Jacob, or Israel, for ever. Did David ever sit upon 
the throne of that new kingdom which you say was set up 
at Pentecost? 

C. Pshaw! You have missed the whole thing. Give me 
one verse from Acts, and I will accept that. 

M. Very well. " Therefore being a prophet, and knowing 
that God had sworn with an oath to him (David ), that of 
the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise 
up Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts ii. 30.) So, you see, 
on the very day of Pentecost it was stated that Christ 
should sit on the throne of David. Now, if the Jewish 
Church was just about to be done away, and a new Church 
just going to be organized, this would have been the time 
and place for Peter to have made some mention of it, would 
ii not? 

C. Well, it may seem so to you. Who were the apostles 
to rule over? Had they the right to rule anybody? 

M. Yes. From Washington to Garfield, our Presidents 
have had subordinate officers; and from David to Christ, 
ill whn sat upon the throne of God's kingdom had their 



66 



Theological Grub-ax. 



subordinate officers. The apostles were Christ's subordinate 
officers. They had no authority to rule in the Church, 
except as it was given them by Christ. We will consider 
the position of the apostles in the Church under the follow- 
ing head, viz. : 

WHO WEBE THE APOSTLES APPOINTED TO JUDGE? 

C. Now, Brother Methodist, be very careful to confine 
yourself to the Bible on this point, for it is very important 
that we should know whether they were to rule in the n^w 
Church or in the old Jewish Church. 

M. I am not willing to advance an idea that cannot be 
fully sustained by the Bible. 

C. Tell me, then, who the apostles were appointed to 
judge or rule. 

M. The twelve tribes of Israel. 

C. Astonishing! Don't you know that the new Church 
T\hich was organized at Pentecost has no connection what- 
ever with the twelve tribes? How could the apostles rule 
in an organization that was done away at Pentecost? 

M. I will let Jesus answer. "And I appoint unto you a 
kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye 
may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke xxii. 
29, 30.) Is that satisfactory? 

C. I will study that passage some, for the apostles must 
have ruled over the new Church, I think. 

M. When you study it, please note the following points: 
(1) It is the words of Jesus just after he had instituted his Sup- 
per; (2) Jesus placed his table in the twelve tribes, for the 
passage reads, "That ye may eat and drink at my table in 
my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes ; 

(3) the twelve tribes sprung from the house of Jacob; and 

(4) 1 have showed you that Christ reigned over the house 
of Jacob. (Luke i. 33. j Seeing that the Lord placed hi? 
table in the twelve trib and you say the new Churcn ha* 



A. Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



67 



ao connection with the twelve tribes, I should like to know 
who placed the table which you call the Lord's table in 
that "new Church." 

C. You think, then, that Christ and his apostles lid not 
establish a new Church, but continued the Jewish Church 
under the name of the twelve tribes. 
1 M. That is my belief. Will you accept it? 

C. I will not, unless you give me some proof from the 
Acts of the Apostles. 

M. Very well. \Yhen Paul spoke in his defense before 
Festus and Agrippa, he said: "Unto which promise our 
twelve tribes instantly serving God day and night hope to 
come. For which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused 
of the Jews." (Acts xxvi. 7.) Observe the following 
points: (1) Paul claimed no other hope than the hope of 
the twelve tribes ; (2; he uttered this language twenty-six 
years after Pentecost; (3) if there was a new Church 
established at Pentecost, it seems that Paul did not belong 
to it, or he would have had the hope of the " new Church," 
and not of the twelve tribes. Do you wish any further 
pi oof ? 

C. Yes, sir; as this is a vital question, I want all the 
pi oof I can get. Can you give me any thing from the 
Epistles? 

M". Certainly. "James, a servant of God, and of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered 
abroad, greeting." (James i. 1.) From this you see that 
James dedicated his Epistle to the twelve tribes, and not to 
a ''new Church." Now, remember that James wrote thi 
"Epistle several years after Pentecost, but he does not seen] 
o have heard of that "new Church." Did any inspired 
apostle ever address a letter to the "new Church?" 

C. I do not remember that they did; but we will be 
all right when we get to heaven. God knows his true 
Church. 

M. Let us see if we can find anv mention made of tb*» 



68 



Theological Ghub-ax. 



"new Church" in connection with heaven. In speaking 
of the heavenly Jerusalem, St. John said it "had twelve 
gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written 
thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the 
children of Israel." (He v. xxi. 12.) Now, if God estab- 
lished a "new Church'' at Pentecost, and did awav with 
the Church in the twelve tribes, as you teach, dees it not 
look strange that he did not have its name written some- 
where about the heavenly Jerusalem? 

C. I do not understand that. I am getting worried with 
this matter, anyhow, and I wish to dismiss this twelve 
tribe business, and talk with you on the subject under the 
title of kingdom. I know I can sustain my theory under 
that head. 

M. I will take great pleasure in talking to you about the 
kingdom, but I wish to add another thought to this " twelve 
tribe business," as you call it. Let us enter into the "new 
Jerusalem," and see if there has been any arrangement 
made there for the "new Church." "On either side of the 
river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner 
of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month ; and the leaves 
of the tree were for the hen ling of the nations." (Rev, 
xxii. 2.) There, you see. is fruit representing each of the 
twelve tribes, but none to represent the "new Church." 
Now, I will sum up some of the points I have made. (1) 
If there was a "new Church" established at Pentecost, 
Christ did not rule it. for he ruled the house of Jacob, or 
the twelve tribes; (2) the apostles had no care ever it, fa. 
they were appointed "judges of the twelve tribes;" (3) the 
Lord did not give it any table, for he put his table in tho 
twelve tribes ; (-1) God did not appoint any apostle to write 
an epistle to it ; (5) its name is not written on any one of the 
gates of the new Jerusalem, but the names of the twelve 
tribes are written there ; (6) there is nothing in heavea 
to represent it . (7) there is no mention made of it in th? 
Bible. 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



69 



KINGDOM OF GOD. 

C. Now, Brother Methodist, I am going to prove by the 
Bible that the kingdom, or Church, of Christ was organized 
on the day of Pentecost. 

M. I shall gladly hear you. But tell me, do you believe 
that God has a visible and an invisible kingdom in this world? 

C. No. I know nothing of an invisible kingdom. You 
Methodists are alwavs talking about something that no- 
body understands. Where did you get such an idea as 
that ? 

M. From the Bible. 

C. Well, I would like to have chapter and verse. 

M. Paul says the kingdom of God is ''righteousness, 
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. xiv. 17.) 
Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are all 
invisible, and yet Paul gives them as the component parts 
of God's kingdom. Now, if all of the parts of God's king- 
dom are invisible, is not the kingdom invisible? 

C. It would seem so ; but I must have more proof before 
I can accept that doctrine. 

M. Very well. Jesus said to his followers, "The king- 
dom of God is within you." (Luke xvii. 21.) Observe 
that he does not say "the kingdom of God shall be in you 
after it is established at Pentecost," but he said "is within 
you " Is that satisfactory? 

C. W-e-1-1, you admit that there is a visible kingdom. 

M Certainly I do ; and the visible kingdom has good 
and bad people in it, while the kingdom of grace, or spir- 
itual kingdom, does not contain one bad person. 

C. How do you know the visible kingdom has bad peo- 
pie in it? 

M. By Christ's own language: "Again, the kingdom of 
heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and 
gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they 
drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into 
vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end 



70 



Theological Grub-ax. 



of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the 
wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the 
furnace of fire." (Matt. xiii. 47-50.) Observe, (1) the 
kingdom is like the net ; (2) the net caught good and ^ad; 
(3) good and bad people get into the visible kingdom; (4) 
the angels will sever the wicked from among the just, and 
cast them into the fire; (5) so we see that some who are in 
the visible kingdom will be cast into hell at the last day. 

C. I am surprised that I never noticed that before. 
How do people get into these kingdoms — the visible and 
the invisible? 

M. By water baptism, administered to the visible man, 
we are brought into the visible kingdom ; by spiritual bap- 
tism, administered to the spiritual man, we are brought into 
the spiritual kingdom. So you see that a visible ordinance 
brings us into the visible kingdom, and an invisible ordi- 
nance brings us into the invisible kingdom. 

C. You talk like there were two men in one man, one vis- 
ible and the other invisible. Can you give me chapter and 
verse for that? 

M. Yes, sir. "Though our outward man perish, yet the 
inward man is renewed day by day." (2 Cor. iv. 16.) 
You see, Paul speaks of two men — the body, or outward 
man, is visible; the soul, or inward man, is invisible. 

C. That does seem to be so; but what does that have to 
do with setting up the kingdom, or infant baptism? 

M. I wanted to show you that God had an invisible 
kingdom, which cannot be entered by any one except those 
who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that he hid a 
visible kingdom, into which all persons should be adiiiittt*. 
in infancy. The net gathered all kinds — big, little, old, 
young, good and bad. Taking bad fish into the net did 
not make them good; nor does taking bad people intc the 
visible kingdom of God make them good, but it gives them 
better opportunities for becoming good than they couJd 
have out of the kinp"doru. 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



71 



C. How do you prove that we get into the "invisible'* 
kingdom, as you call it, by the Holy Ghost? 

M. By the language of Christ and his apostles. 

C. Will you give me chapter and verse? 

M Certainly. "Go ye into all the world, and preach 
he gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) It had been said of Jesus, 
" He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Jesus, then, 
is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism, and faith is 
the condition on which it is received ; so " he that believeth 
and is" — in the act of believing — " baptized " with the Holy 
Ghost "shall be saved" from past sins. 

C. I always thought that meant water baptism. What 
leads you to believe it means Holy Ghost baptism ? 

M. The "signs that should follow them that believed" 
were the signs that followed Holy Ghost baptism ; and Paul 
said, when speaking of the body of Christ, or the invisible 
kingdom, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Again: "But ye are washed, but 
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the 
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor vi. 11.) 
You see from these passages that the Holy Ghost is applied 
to the spiritual, or inward, man, and washes him, justifies him, 
sanctifies him, and baptizes him into the invisible kingdom. 

C. Look here, brother, you have got my head to wool- 
gathering, and you have dodged around and kept me from 
my point. Now, let us talk directly about 

SETTING UP THE KINGDOM, OK CHUKCH. 

f wish you to understand that what I have to say relates 
to the visible kingdom of God, for I know nothing of the 
invisible kingdom about which you speak. I say the 
Church of God was established on the day of Pentecost, in 
the city of Jerusalem, by the xVpostle Peter, and I can prove 
it by the Bible. 



72 



Theological Grub-ax. 



M. Well, if you can, that will certain] y settle the ques* 
» tion so far as I am concerned. Please give me the scripture. 

C. "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven 
set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed/' (Dan. 
ii. 44,) Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my 
Church." (Matt. xvi. 18.) Now, it does seem to me that if 
any man would just lay aside prejudice, these two passages 
would convince him that the Church was to be established 
after Christ spoke this language, and the day of Pentecost 
was certainly the day on which it was done. Now, I would 
like to know how you will set these two passages aside. 

M. I do not wish to set them aside. I will let the divine 
writers explain them. "In that day will I raise up the 
tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches 
thereof ; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it 
as in the days of old/' (Amos ix. 11.) Now, if we can 
find what this prophecy referred to, it will enable us to get 
some light on the passages you quoted. Let us read Acts 
xv. 15, 16: "And to this agree the words of the prophets; 
as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again 
the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I 
will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." 
The apostles were considering the matter of circumcision, 
and also the reception of the Gentiles into the Church ; and 
they declared that God put no difference between the Jews 
and Gentiles, and that bringing in the Gentiles was "build- 
ing again the tabernacle of David, and setting it up." 
Now, the passages you read cannot refer to any other 
Church than the one referred to in the passages I have just 
r^ad ; and they do not refer to establishing a new Church 
but to "building again the tabernacle of David as of old." 
That accords with Christ sitting on the throne of David, aa 
I have already proved in another chapter. 

C. I am not ready to yield my point yet; for if you prove 
that the present Church is a continuation of the Jewish 
Church, I do not see how we can avoid infant membership, 



A Teeattse on Infant Baptism. 



73 



forlhey were certainly in the Jewish Church. But T think 
the Jewish Church was a type of the Christian Church. 

M That cannot benefit your theory, even if it were true ; 
foi if children were in the type, they certainly should be 
in the antitype, unless you can find a special command from 
God to leave them out, for they were put in by his special 
command. 

C. I do not remember any command to leave them out; 
but I cannot accept your doctrine, because there is not 
sufficient identity between the old and new Church. 

M. I think there is: 1. They have the same Saviour. 
The promise to Abraham was, " Thy seed, which is Christ." 
(Gal. iii. 16, 17.) 2. The covenant made with Abraham 
was " confirmed before of God in Christ." (Gal. iii. 17.) 
3. The law was a school-master to the Jews to bring them 
to Christ, that they might be justified by faith." (Gal. iii. 
24.) 4. " They drank of that Rock that followed them, and 
that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. x. 4.) They had the same 
condition of justification. "Abraham believed in the Lord, 
and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. xv. 6.) 
Paul made this passage the basis of his grand argument 
on salvation by faith, in Rom. iii. and iv. They had the 
same gospel. " God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." (Gal. 
iii. 8.) "Unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto 
them." (Heb. iv. 2.) So you see they had the same Saviour, 
the same gospel, and the same condition of pardon. And 
now, brother, I wish to say that the divine writers often 
spoke of the Church before the day of Pentecost, and they 
nowhere intimated that it should be done away and a new 
one made. 

C. Will you give me some of the passages in which they 
fcpoke of the Church before Pentecost? 

M. With pleasure. Speaking of Jesus, Stephen said, 
"This is he that was in the Church in the wildernes?." 
(Acts vii. 38.) David said, "In the midst of the a>u- 



74 



Theological Grub-ax. 



gregation will I praise thee." CPs. xxii. 22.) The con- 
gregation spoken of by David is called the Church by 
Paul. " In the midst of the Church will I sing praise 
unto thee." (Heb. ii. 120 Of certain offenses Jesus saiJ 
to his disciples, " Tell it unto the Church/' (Matt, xviii 
17.) All of these passages refer to the Church before 
Pentecost, and none of them intimate that it should bo 
done away on the day of Pentecost, or any other day. 

C. But you must remember that the day of Pentecost 
was a great day, and many changes took place, one of 
which was the old Church was done away and the new one 
was organized. 

M. If you are correct, that would have been the right 
time and the proper place in which to make some mention of 
it. We will turn to the second chapter of Acts, and see 
if we can find any account of the new organization. 
"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; 
and the same day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls." (Acts ii. 41.) This is the only language 
in connection with Pentecost that gives an account of the 
relation of any one being changed, and the statement is, 
"About three thousand souls were added." Added to what? 

C. The new Church, of course, which they were then 
organizing. 

M. Did Peter take himself in. and did the other apostles 
take themselves in too; and then did they all take the 
three thousand in? or how was it? 

C. I do not know just how it was, but — 

M. Do n't you think it was a great oversight in the 
writer of the Acts that he did not tell us that the new 
Church was organized then and there,if such was the case? 
Does he not mention hundreds of things that are not half 
so important to the Christian world as that would have 
been if it were a fact ? 

C. Well, it does not look quite so clear to me as it did. 

M. Do you really believe that God was experimenting 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



with his people for four thousand years, and that all of his 
experiments failed until Pentecost, when he found just the 
thing he wanted, and wiped out all of his failures, and estal>- 
lished the new Church as a monument of his first success- 
ful experiment? Do you believe itf 

C. I think [ have said nothing that would justify the 
conclusion that I believe God to he so puerile as that. 

M. If your theory is an exponent of your faith, I could * 
not resist the conclusion. 

C. Well, I know I can show from the Bible that we are 
not living under the old covenant that God made with 
Abraham and I propose that we take up the subject under 
the head of 

COVENANT. 

Now, my position is that God did away with the covenant 
he made with Abraham, and that we are living under a 
new and better covenant ; and I will see you out on this 
proposition, for I am fully sustained by the Bible. 

M. I will be pleased to hear the scripture which sus- 
tains you in that position. 

C. You shall have it. " Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house 
of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Heb. viii. 8.) 
Now, don't you see that God made a new covenant? and 
why will you still contend for the Abrahamic covenant? 

M. Of course God made a new covenant ; but I thought 
you were to show that he made a new Church. A cove* 
pant is not a Church, is it? 

0. no; but when God made a new Church, he made a 
L3W covenant with it, don't you see? 

M. Then you must give me another passage, for the ons 
y »u read says the new covenant was made "with the he, use 
of Israel and with the house of Judah" and a new Church is 
Dx)t mentioned. From the house of Israel sprung the twelve 
tribes; so you see the new covenant was made with the 
twelve tribes, and not with a new Church 



76 



Theological Grub-ax. 



C. Well, it knocks the props from under your theory 
anyhow: for if God made a new covenant, that does away 
with the covenant with Abraham. 

M. Not at all. It dops not affect the Abrahamic cove- 
rant in any way. Please read the next verse. 

C. "Not according to the covenant that. I made with 
their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to 
lead them out of the land of Egypt." (Heb. viii. 9.) 

M. There! You missed the true idea in the passage by 
stopping before you read it all. This "new covenant," you 
see, was to displace the one God made with his people 
" when he led them out of Egypt," and not the one he made 
with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before that. 

C. That is so. Why did n't I see that before? 

M. Perhaps you were not looking for that point. It is 
hard for a man to see what he does not wish to see. 

C. What covenant did God make with the house of Is- 
rael when he brought them out of Egypt? 

M. He gave them the law of commandments contained 
in ordinances. It included the sacrifices that pointed to 
Christ, and when he came they had an end, for Paul says 
this law was added "till the seed should come to whom 
the promise was made." (Gal. iii. 19.) 

C. But Christ took the Jewish Church out of the way, 
and nailed it to his cross; so your theory won't do, at last. 

M. Nailed the Church of God to his cross? You astound 
me! I suppose you refer to Col. ii. 14. Please read it. 

C. "Blotting out the nandwriting of ordinances that was 
' against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross." 

M. Ah! It was "ordinances,'" and not the Church, that 
was nailed to the cross. God had given these ordinances 
as a pledge that Christ would come and redeem the world, 
and when Jesus died on the cross the pledge was redeemed 
&nd the ordinances were like a note when the amount ex 
pressed in its lace is paid — cancelled. 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



77 



C. If I fail to find the new Church under the new cove- 
nant, I am at a loss to know what to do, for that seems to be 
the only chance left for me. Do n't you think doing a^ay 
with the ordinances nullified the covenant with Abraham? 

M. I will let Paul answer: "And this I say, that the 
covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ the 
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can net 
disannul, that it should make the promise of none etife< t * 
(Gal. iii. 17.) From the covenant God made with Abrahan 
to the departure of Israel from Egypt was four hundred 
and thirty years ; so the law mentioned in this passage is the 
law God gave the house of Israel " when he took them by 
the hand to lead them out of Egypt," and the new covenant 
had reference to no other law, as I have shown you, and 
Paul says it "cannot disannul" the Abrahamic covenant. 

C. But I read of a better covenant on better promises, 

M. Certainly. The new covenant puts the law of God 
"into the mind, and writes it in the hearts" of his children 
(fleb. viii. 10), and that is much better than to have it 
placed before their eyes in the forms of "bleeding birds 
and bleeding beasts," as it was in the law of ordinances. 
I am at a loss to know how God could make a better cov- 
enant than the one he made with Abraham, for it was " con- 
firmed before of God in Christ." That would be hard t<? 
improve, would it not? 

C. You think, then, that God made an unlimited cove- 
nant with Abraham, and that the Church is under that 
covenant at the present time? 

M. I do; for if the Church was organized under a l.m* 
iied covenant, when the time was served the Church ceased 
to exist; but if the covenant was unlimited, the Chinch 
will have an unlimited existence, for God never made two 
covenants to establish the same end. 

C. How will you prove the Abrahamic covenant to be 
unlimited? I must admit the truth of your logic, but I 
chink you will fail to prove your ftrst proposition* 



78 



Theological Grub-ax. 



M. To the law and to the testimony. But before I b& 
gin the argument, I wish to make a few statements: (1) All 
of the Bible was written by Jews; (2) all of Christ's 
apostles were Jews ; (3) all of Gods covenants were made 
with the Jews. Do you accept these statements? 

C. All but the last; I think that God's new coven an 
was made with the Gentiles. 

M. Paul says it was made "with the house of Israel. 1 ' 

C. How, then, can the Gentiles be saved, if God made 
no covenant with them? 

M. I will let Paul answer. Speaking of the Gentiles 
coming into the Jewish Church, he said : " And thou (Gen- 
tile), being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them 
(Jews), and with them (Jews) partakest of the root and 
fatness of the olive-tree" (Jewish Church). (Bom. xi. 17.) 
"For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild 
by nature (kingdom of darkness), and wert graffed con- 
trary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall 
these (Jews), which be the natural branches, be graffed into 
their own olive-tree (Church) ? " (Bom. xi. 24.) Paul wrote 
this about twenty-seven years after Pentecost, and it was a 
fine time for him to have told the Gentiles that God had 
made a new Church for them, if such had been the fact; 
but he tells them they were "graffed into the good olive- 
tree," or Jewish Church. 

C. But you have not shown that all of God's covenants 
^ ere made with the Jews. Please give me chapter and verse. 

M. Of the Jews Paul said: "Who are Israelites; to 
whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the cove 
nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God 
and the promises." (Bom. ix. 4.) So the Gentiles have no 
separate covenant, but must comply with the terms of the 
toveuant made with the Jews in order to their salvation. 

C, I do not understand that. You promised to show thai 
the covenant God made with Abraham was unlimited ; ami 
if you will do that by the Bible, I will have my children 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



79 



Drought into covenant relation with God, for children were 
«Ttainly included in that covenant. 

M, Are you certain you will stand to that ? 

C. I am. Our Church has none of your creeds or C6njs& 
nor 's of faith. Every member is allowed his own private 
judgment. 

JL Creed or no creed, you will likely have trouble wif l 
Jroiu brethren if you have your children baptized. But I 
will make good my statement. 

A BR AH A MIC COVENANT UNLIMITED. 

C. Please give me chapter and verse; for I love my chil- 
dren, and want them to have all of the benefits of God's 
covenant to which they are entitled. 

M. I will do so. God said to Abraham : "And I will 
establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 
after thee, in their generations for an everlasting covenant, 
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Gen. 
xvii. 7.) Is everlasting limited, or unlimited? 

C. Pshaw! Everlasting in that passage just means for 
ages, and all of that covenant was done away at Pente- 
cost. 

M. In the Old Testament, when the word "everlasting" 
is used in reference to the Abrahamic covenant, it just 
means "till Pentecost," does it? 

C. W-e-1-1, I suppose it does. 

M. I will give you another case. Of the rainbow cove- 
nant, God said to Noah : "And the bow shall be in the cloud ; 
and 1 will look upon it, that I may remember the everlast 
irsg covenant between God and everyjiving creature of aL 
flush that is upon the earth." (Gen. ix. 16.) Do yo 1 ! 
think the rainbow covenant was limited? 

C. Of course not. All agree that it was unlimited, 
We are under the rainbow covenant now. 

M. If the correctness of your theory depended on youi 
proving the rainbow covenant to be limited, could you not 



80 



Theological Grub-ax. 



as easily prove it from the Bible as you could that the 
Abrahamic covenant was limited? 
C. W-e-I-1, I do n't know 

M. Suppose we take another passage. "He hath 
membered his covenant forever, the word which he con- 
nanded to a thousand generations; which covenant he 
nade with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac; and con- 
irmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an 
everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the 
land of Canaan." (Ps. cv. 8-11.) Observe : (1) This was 
the covenant God made with Abraham ; (2) God com- 
manded it to a thousand generations; (3) God obligated 
himself to maintain it with "his oath unto Isaac;" (4) he 
confirmed it unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an ever- 
lasting covenant; (5) in confirmation he gave them the 
land of Canaan. Does that not make it very plain? 

C. It may seem so to you, but I think it all ended on 
the day of Pentecost. 

M. If it did, what becomes of God's word and oath, for 
he said and swore that it should stand to a thousand gener- 
ations ; and Matthew says: "So all the generations from 
Abraham to David are fourteen generations ; and from 
David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen 
generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon 
unto Christ are fourteen generations. 79 (Matt. i. 17.) Let 
us say that from the birth of Christ till the day of Pente- 
cost was one generation, and how many generations have we } 

C. Forty-three. 

M. The covenant that God swore should last to a thou- 
(and generations you say ended with forty-three generation*; 
or, in plain words, God made a mistake of nine hundred 
and fifty-seven generations. That is quite a mistake in n 
matter of such moment. Do n't you think it possible you 
may be mistaken?' 

C. W-e-1-1, of course — I — well, my head seems to be wool- 
gathering again. It really looks like you have very neam 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 81 



sustained your proposition; and if you could give me a 
passage or two from the New Testament, I do not see how 
I could resist any longer. 

M. I will do so. "And if ye be Christ's/ then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.™ 
(Gal. iii. 29.) All of a man's seed belong to his family 
but the seed spoken of here is any one who belongs t< 
Christ. That is, all Christians are the seed of Abraham 
and heirs according to the promise made to Abraham. So, 
you see, all who belong to the family, or Church, of Christ 
belong to the same family, or Church, to which Abraham 
belonged, and are called his seed ; hence, Abraham is called 
"the father of us all." (Rom. iv. 16.) And it is also 
stated that " the promise that he should be the heir of the 
world was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the 
law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Rom. vi. 
13.) To be the children of Abraham, we only have to 
" walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham." 
(Rom. iv. 12.) Not in the steps of some other faith, but 
the same faith that Abraham had. So Paul says, "Now 
we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." 
(Gal. iv. 28.) 

C. If you could give me one passage from the Acts, I 
would be compelled to give up my theory. 

M. "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto 
Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the. 
earth be blessed." (Acts iii. 25.) This was the language 
of Peter, and was spoken after the day of Pentecost; yet 
he tells the people that they are the children of the cove- 
nant that God made with Abraham. Peter was the speaker 
cn the day of Pentecost, and if a " new Church " was organ- 
ized on that day under a new covenant, he certainly knew 
it; and does it not seem strange that he would tell th* 
people they were still under the Abrahamic covenant? 

C. Tt does seem so. 
6 



82 



Theological Grub-ax. 



M. Can you show where God ever made a covenant with 
his people, and did not include children? 

C. I do not remember any such covenant just now. 

M. Will you, then, have your children brought into 
covenant relation with God by baptism? 

C. I will, provided I cannot find scripture to overturn 
your theory. Give me one week to examine all the texts 
you have used, and see what scripture I can find in support 
of the "new Church" theory, and I will report to you. 

M. Please allow me to give you a few more points U 
consider. If God is the author of infant membership un- 
der the Abrahamic covenant, and that covenant was un- 
limited, does it not follow that infant membership is unlim- 
ited, unless God made some provision in the covenant for 
leaving them out at the expiration of a given time ? 

C. It does seem so. 

M. If we leave them out without God's authority, are 
we not trying to destroy the visible Church of God ? 
C. It looks that way to me. 

M. I show^l you that the Church on earth and in heaven 
is one family. (Eph. iii. 15.) Now, I have shown you that 
the family, or Church, in Abraham's day had children in 
it ; and that you admit. Also, you admit that the family 
in heaven lias children in it. So, you see, children had a 
right to membership in the Church of God in the past, and 
they have a right to membership in the future. Now, does 
it not seem strange and inconsistent that any one should 
exclude them in the present? 
) C. That does look very strange. 

M. Can you think of any objection to infant members]] ip 
&cw that would not have been an objection in Abraham's day f 

C. I do not think of any now. 

M. Do you believe that God loves your children as well 
as he loved the children of Abraham ? 

C. I see no reason why he should not. He is no respecter 
of person? 



A Treatise on Infant Baptism. 



83 



M. Do you think your children can do better without 
the benefits of God's covenant than Abraham's children 
could have done ? 

C. I suppose not; but I cannot see what good it wculd 
do to baptize them before they know what it is for. 

M. Do you suppose Abraham's eight days old babies 
knew what they were circumcised for? 

C. Of course not. 

M. If Abraham had entertained your views of infant 
membership when God commanded him (Gen. xvii. 9-14) 
to give his infants the " token " of his covenant, do n't you 
think he w T ould have said: " Lord, I cannot see what good 
that will do ; and if I were to do it, I am afraid the little 
things might cry; and besides, I am afraid when they 
grow to manhood they will be dissatisfied with it, and that 
would be awful. Lord, it looks sg foolish to me, I cannot 
do it?" 

C. W-e-1-1, I — I w 7 ish to study the matter one week, and 
then I will give you my conclusion. 

M. Very well ; be sure to study closely all the points I 
have given you. Here is a manuscript which contains al] 
I have given you, and several more. It will assist you in 
getting up the points in order. 

LAST MEETING. 

C. Well, Brother Methodist, I have given an entire 
week to the points you presented on infant membership. 

M. Did you give them a candid examination? 

C. I am sure I did. I looked over the manuscript yor 
gave me, and fell upon two sentences which caused me t 
reflect a little, and I determined to be, honest. 

M. What were the sentences? 

C. The first one was, " Prejudice keeps many from judg- 
ing fairly." The second was, " Of all prejudices, religious 
ones are the most stubborn." When I read these, I resolved 
to lay aside all prejudice, and let truth prevail. 



84 



Theologtcai Grub-ax. 



M. That was right. What was the result of jour ex- 
amination 9 

C. The manuscript enabled me to get up the points in 
the following order, viz.: You showed (1) that, according 
to my own theory, infants should be baptized; (2) that if 
was in the Church, and my children were, as I claimed, 
jetter than I am, they certainly had a right to a place in 
the Church; (3) that if, as I believed, my children were 
good enough for heaven, they certainly were good enough 
for God's Church on earth; (4) that Jesus Christ was born 
a king, and sat on the throne of David, and not on the 
throne of a new Church; (5) that Jesus ruled the "house 
of Jacob," and not a new Church; (6) that the twelve 
apostles were appointed by Christ to rule the twelve tribes, 
and not a new Church ; (7) that Jesus placed his table in 
the twelve tribes, and not in a new Church ; (8) that Pc.ul 
had the hope of the twelve tribes, and not of a new Church ; 
(9) that James dedicated his Epistle to the twelve trib js, 
and not to a new Church; (10) that arrangements were 
made in heaven for the twelve tribes, and not for a r#w 
Church; (11) that no divine writer ever addressed an 
epistle to, or spoke of, a new Church; (12) that there a as 
no kingdom, or Church, organized on the day of Pentecc it; 
(13) that the kingdom of David was established by the 
apostles; (14) that the Abrahamic Church had the sa oe 
Saviour, the same gospel, and the same condition of pare m 
that it now has,; (15) that God never made two covenants 
to establish the same end; (16) that God never made a 
covenant to take the place of the one he made with Abia- 
ha/n; (17) that God made his new covenant "with the 
ouse of Israel and with the house of Judah," and nr t 
with a new Church ; (18) that the new covenant was to dis- 
place the one he made with his people "when he took them 
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," and 
not the one he made with Abraham ; (19) that if there was 
a new Church established on the day of Pentecost, it 



A Treatise ox Infant Baptism 



85 



AO Lord's table in it, and God lias no covenant with it, so 
far as the Bible shows; (20) that the covenant God made 
with Abraham was unlimited ; (21) that infants were in- 
cluded in that covenant, and that their right to Church- 
membership is unlimited ; (22) that if God put infants into 
his Church, and we put them out without his authority, we 
are trying to tear down the Church of God ; (23) that God 
loves our children as well as he loved the children of Abra- 
ham; (24) that our children need the benefits of God's 
covenant as much as Abraham's did; (25) that we should 
lay aside all prejudice, and give this matter a candid in- 
vestigation ; (26) that we — 

M. There, that will do. You have gotten the lesson 
well. Now, give me your conclusion. 

C. I have often said, publicly and privately, that I was 
willing to take the Bible on any subject, and I am going to 
make my word good. I am free to say that I think you 
have proved beyond a doubt that there was no kingdom, or 
Church, organized on the day of Pentecost, and that the 
covenant with Abraham was unlimited; and I think I am 
bound by that covenant to take my children into covenant 
relation with God. I have had great prejudice against in- 
fant membership, but I have made it a matter of prayer 
for the last week, and I am determined to do my duty. 
how pleasant it will be to have my children, my "house- 
hold," with me in the Church! I do not know that the 
households of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, had chil- 
dren in them, but I come as near knowing that they did as 
that they did not; so I will just adopt Bible language, and 
have my "household" baptized. I reckon no reasonable 
person can object to that. 

M. Whether any one objects or not, your plan is safe, be- 
cause the Scripture bears you out. But you have been preach- 
ing for some years against infant baptism. Were you perfect- 
ly satisfied with your theory on that subject all the while? 

C. I cannot say that I was fully satisfied. 



86 



Theological Grub-ax 



M. What seemed to be the trouble? 

C. I will mention two points. You know that our Ohurcii 
teaches, in common with others, that the departure of Is- 
rael from Egypt was a type of sinners leaving the king- 
dom of Satan, and that the baptism which they received 
while crossing the Red Sea w T as a type of Christian bap- 
tism. I read in Ex. xii. 37 that there were " about six hun- 
dred thousand on foot that were men, besides children." Also, * 
in 1 Cor. x. 2, that they " were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud and in the sea." If that baptism was a type of 
Christian baptism, as we all teach, it was hard for me to 
see how we could refuse to baptize infants, as God certainly 
baptized them on that occasion. 

M. I do not wonder that you were puzzled over that. 
Please give me the other point. 

C. I noticed that the shepherd and his flock were often 
made to represent Christ and his followers. Especially 
in the tenth chapter of John, Jesus calls his followers 
his sheep, himself "the good Shepherd," and his Church 
"the fold;" and I knew it was the universal custom for 
shepherds to put the lambs into the fold with the old 
sheep. Also, Jesus said to Peter, " Feed my lambs." In 
regard to a flock of sheep, I knew it would be better to 
leave the old sheep out of the fold than it would to leave 
the lambs out, for they needed more care than the old sheep. 
If the shepherd, sheep, and fold represented Christ, his 
followers, and his Church, I could not understand why we 
should take grown people into the Church, and leave the 
babes — lambs — out. 

M. Do you remember any thing else that disturbed your 
mind on the subject? 

C. Yes, sir; a comment I heard you make on the com- 
mission, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) You said: "This 
passage does not say baptize men, women, or children , and 



A Tkeatise on Infant Baptism. 



87 



yet it says just the same about baptizing children that it 
does about baptizing men and women. The command is, 
' Baptize nations/ and nations are composed of men, wom- 
en and children. All admit that men and women are 
proper subjects for baptism, but some say children are not. 
Why do they say so? Is it because it is anywhere for- 
bidden in the word of God? No. Is it because of any 
covenant God made with his people in which he did not 
include children ? No. Is it because the command to ' bap- 
tize nations ' does not include children ? No, that cannoi 
be, for children outnumber any other class in nations. Do 
you say it is because our children cannot be taught ? Did 
not God command his people in the days of Moses to teach 
his commandments to their children when they sat down, 
dud when they rose up, when they went out and when 
they came in? and did that injunction disqualify infants 
only eight days old for membership in the Church, because 
they could not understand God's law at that age? No, 
Suppose we expel from the Church all of the one hundred 
and fifty pound babies who do not understand the law of 
God perfectly, how many would we have left ? Few, very 
l ew. Take an illustration : Speaking of my sheep, I say 
tu my servant, ' Go ye, therefore, put my flock into the fold 
feeding them.' The servant puts in the old sheep, and 
leaves the lambs out. I see the lambs in great distress, and 
hear their piteous cries. I say, ' Tom, why did you leave 
the lambs out?' He replies, ' Because, master, you did not 
guy put up the lambs.' 'Did I say put up the old sheep? 
'No sir, master, but you said put up the flock, feeding them, 
and I knew the lambs were too little to eat hay, and 1 
thought, of course, you just meant put up those that could 
eat; and I thought the lambs would not know what I was 
putting them up for, and I thought, What good can it 
do to put them up when they can't eat? better wait till 
theT get big enough to know what it all means. So I just 
left them out.' Ah! there is the secret! You thought, and 



88 



Theological Grub-ax. 



therefore leave children out of the fold of Christ. God 
put them in, but you thought, and turned them out/' I 
must confess that I was a little fretted with you when you 
made those remarks, for I did not know how to meet your 
argument, and I was too stubborn to admit that I was in 
an error; but now I am thoroughly convinced, and since 
you have shown that the Abrahamic covenant was unlim- 
ited, you have dug up the tap-root of Campbellism, and de- 
stroyed our beginning-corner, for you know that the truth 
of our w T hole theory depends upon the "new Church" 
established at Pentecost. You have shown that there 
was no new Church organized on that day, so our whole 
theory must go down. 

M. No surveyor can run correct lines from an incorrect 
beginning-corner. 

C. No, sir. He may cross the correct line now and then, 
but he will not follow it. 

M. From a wrong beginning-corner your brethren have 
run into many errors, and some time in the near future I 
expect to take the theological grub-ax to many of them, 
and grub out the last germ. 

C. I wish to be at the grubbing. 

M. You shall have a ticket in due time. 

C. I am sure some of my brethren will not like you for 
dealing so plainly with our pet theory ; and not withstand • 
ing all of our boasted liberty of private judgment on the 
teachings of the Bible, I expect to have great trouble about 
having my children baptized, and I think it likely that I 
may be expelled from the Church, or they may "with 
draw" from me, as we call it. 

M. I rather suspect that your brethren will find ver^ 
serious objections to your private judgment in this matter, 
as it does not happen to accord with theirs; but be firm, 
and God will sustain you. Farewell unti] the next grub- 
bing. God bless you! 



THE CURRY-COMB. 



Infant Baptism from a New Standpoint. 

(89) 



PREFACE. 



The comraancl of God to parents in regard to training their 
children is : " Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." (Eph. vi. 4.) In my training my parents adhered 
strictly to this command. The command to children in regard 
to their duty to parents is: '''Honor thy father and mother." 
(Eph. vi. 2.) I have complied strictly with this command all 
my life, and as my parents, in common with all parents who 
have had then children baptized, are charged with sin for having 
me baptized. I offer this little " Curry-comb " in vindication of 
my parents for giving me to the Lord in baptism when I was a 
little babe; for if they had neglected this duty, I never could 
have been satisfied with my baptism. I send this little book 
out, hoping that many may rind comfort and profit by reading 
its pages. John. H. Nichols. 

(91) 



INTRODUCTION. 



A babe is born with a soul; therefore some talk much about 
the " religious rights " of babes. Infant baptism has reference to 
the religious interest of children, but as infants know nothing 
about religion it is claimed by some that infant baptism takes 
away the religious rights of children, and is therefore very 
wrong. But babes are born with bodies and minds. If being 
born with souls gives babes religious rights, then being born with 
bodies and minds gives them bodily and merited rights. Then, if it 
is wrong to do any thing for the good of the soul before children 
understand any thing about religious matters, it is certainly 
wrong to do any thing for the good of the body and mind before 
they understand any thing about these matters. As all argu- 
ments I have seen against infant baptism on this line are on the 
surface, it occurred to me that a small " Curry-comb " would be all 
that is necessary to remove them, so I have made the "Comb," 
which I am sure will answer the purpose. While there are 
some horses to be curried, I am aware that there are many little 
knotty mules and some coarse, rough-haired donkeys to be cur- 
ried too, so I have made the "Curry-comb " of good, strong Bible 
material, and put a sound, logical handle to it, and I am sure it 
will not break, though a horse, mule, or donkey should stand on 
it with all his weight. Brother, try the "Curry-comb," and you 
will find it a success. John H. Nichols. 

Springfield, Term., June 1, 1S89. 

(92) 



CHAPTER III. 



The Curry-comb. 



Campbellite. And you are the author of " Grub-ax," 4 
I am told? I am glad to meet you. 

Methodist. Yes, sir. What can I do for you? 

Campbellite. I want you to explain a few things to 
me about infant baptism which you did not touch in 
the "Grub-ax," and which I think you dodged on 
purpose, for I am sure you cannot explain them. Xow 
you know that infant baptism takes away the religious 
rights of the child — that is, does not leave the child 
to its own choice as to the mode of baptism, but forces 
sprinkling on it without its will or consent, and I say 
that is very wrong. And again, when it comes to 
years it may not believe in infant baptism — so it 
would be better in all cases to wait till children get 
old enough to have their own choice in all religious 
matters, for religious rights are very dear, and they 
should not be taken from children. 

Methodist. Children have other rights besides re- 
ligious rights. To illustrate: I was born with a body, 
mind, and soul. Xow as religion pertains to the soul, 
I suppose if a child was born without a soul it would 
have no religious rights, 

Campbellite. Certainly not; but as it is born with a 
soul, it is born with religious rights, and they should 
not be interfered with till the child is capable of 
choosing for itself, 

(93) 



94 



The Curry-comb. 



Methodist. Then, as I was born with a body and a 
mind, I suppose I was born with bodily and mental 
rights as well as with religions rights. 

Campbellite. Well, certainly. 

Methodist. But I was not consulted as to whether I 
wanted to be born or not. Don't you think all my 
rights were wholly disregarded in my birth, and 
wasn't that very wrong? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know. 

Methodist. You don't? Well, after I was born I 
was not asked whether it was my pleasure to be 
washed and dressed, and whether I would suck a 
piece of fat meat or take milk from my mother's 
breast. They simply did what they thought best for 
me, and asked me no questions. Xow don't you think 
this total disregard of my bodily rights was very 
wrong? 

Campbellite. I — you — I don't see what you are driv- 
ing at. 

Methodist. You don't? Well, when my face needed 
washing I suppose they just washed it without say- 
ing one word to me about it ; and when I got sick I 
suppose they gave me such medicine as they thought 
good for me without even thinking of getting my 
consent; and if the medicine had a bad taste, as most 
medicines do, I suppose I closed my lips as tightly 
as I could, pushed the spoon from my mouth with all 
my strength, and screamed with all my might; but I 
suppose they held my little hands, parted my little 
lips, forced the spoon into my little mouth, emptied 
the bitter medicine on my little tongue, held my lit- 
tle nose, and forced me to swallow the bad-tasted stuff 
in spite of all the resistance I could possibly make, 



The Cukry-comb. 



95 



and in total disregard of all my bodily rights, and 
don't yon think that was very wicked?" 

Campbellite. 0-f c-o-u-r-s-o the health and comfort 
of children ought to be looked after by parents. 

Methodist. But what about their bodily rights? 
Don't you think parents should wait till children get 
old enough to exercise their own wills in all these 
matters, lest they should do something the children 
will not like when they come to years ? 

Campbellite. Of course that could not be done in 
regard to their bodies, b-u-t — 

Methodist. Tour idea of religious rights^ then, does 
not apply to bodily rights^ does it ? 

Campbellite. N-o; I reckon not. 

Methodist. Then you think my parents did not com- 
mit any great sin in looking after my bodily welfare 
before I was capable of any choice in the matter? - 

Campbellite. Certainly not. It would have been a 
great sin to have neglected this duty. 

Methodist. But I had 

MENTAL EIGHTS 
as well as bodily rights, and my parents not only 
looked after the welfare of my body, but they thought 
my mind was committed to their care also; so they 
used all diligence to develop and cultivate my mind 
without consulting me in any way about the matter, 
and I suppose I was first taught that a smile meant 
approval, while a frown meant disapproval. So I 
was first governed by smiles and frowns, without any 
regard to my mental rights. Do you think that was 
wrong ? 

Campbellite. I — I — suppose not. 

Methodist. 1 grew stronger in body and mind, and 



96 



The Curry-comb. 



my parents were anxious that I should begin to learn 
the meaning of some of the simplest words. How they 
did study ways and plans by which they could teach 
me words and develop my mind. Was there any 
thing wrong in that ? 

Campbellite. Well, I reckon not. 

Methodist. In process of time I learned something 
about words; and then my parents got a little primer 
and began to teach me my letters. All this was done 
without consulting me. They only said: "John, you 
must learn your letters." I knew nothing of the good 
that could come of learning letters. Nevertheless I 
was compelled to learn the letters. Any thing wrong- 
in that? 

Campbellite. I think not. 

Methodist After awhile I began to spell and read 
a little in my primer; and one day they got one of 
"Webster's blue-back spelling-books, and handed it 
to me and said: "John, you must go to school." Lit- 
tle did I know about school, or care for an education; 
but my parents knew what was best for me, and they 
sent me along without asking me whether I wanted 
to go or wanted an education. Do you say that was 
all wrong, and that there was no good in all this be- 
cause I did not understand or know what it was all 
for? 

Campbellite. W-eJ-1, I hardly know, 

Methodist. Then your rule does not apply to mental 
rights, does it ? In a word, could my parents have 
neglected either my body or my mind without having 
done me a great injustice and having been guilty of 
a sin in the sight of God and man? 

Campbellite. No, I think not, 



The Curry-comb. 



97 



Methodist. But I had 

RELIGIOUS EIGHTS 
as well as bodily and mental rights. Now if my par- 
ents were right in attending to all the interests of my 
body and mind without my consent, what about the 
interests of my soul? 

Campbellite. that is a very different matter. 

Methodist. My parents prayed for me before I knew 
any thing about prayer, and without asking me if I 
wanted them to pray for me, or if I would rather 
they should kneel, sit, or stand when they prayed. In 
this they did not regard my religious rights, as you 
say; and did they sin in so doing? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, 1 don't know. 

Methodist. In her prayer to God, did not Hannah 
say: "O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed . . . 
give unto thine handmaid a man-child, then I will 
give him unto the Lord all the days of his life?" (1 
Sam. i. 11. ) And after Samuel was born did not his 
mother say: "For this child I prayed; and the Lord 
hath given me my petition which I asked of him?" 
( 1 Sam. i. 27. ) In all this did Hannah consult Sam- 
uel to know whether he was willing, to be born, and 
willing to be given to the Lord all the days of his 

LIFE? 

Campbellite. Of course she did not. 

Methodist. "Were not Samuel's religious rights as 
dear to him as mine were to me? and did not his 
mother say: " Therefore I have lent him to the Lord; 
as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord?" 
(1 Sam. i. 28. ) And if Samuel was given to the Lord 
"all the days of his life," was he not given to the 
Lord the dag he was bom? and what does a babe one 
7 



98 



The Curry-coxb. 



day old know about being given to the Lord? and 
were not liis religions rights wholly disregarded? and 
did not Hannah commit a great sin? 
■ Campbell ite. Look here; I think you are spinning 
this case down rather fine. Of course Hannah was a 
good woman. 

Methodist, Now my parents were Bible-readers, and 
they had read all that is said about Hannah giving 
her little babe to the Lord all the days of his life, and 
also Solomon's advice to parents, " Train up a child 
in the way he should go : and when he is old, he will 
not depart from it" (Prov. xxii. 6); also what Je- 
sus says about little children coming to him, " Suf- 
fer the little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not; for of such is the kingdom of God;" and 
they were not informed in 'the Bible that those who 
brought their children to Jesus first consulted the 
children as to whether they would be brought or not ; 
but, learning from Luke xviii. 15 that the children 
brought were infants, they of course supposed they 
were not consulted. So one day, without consulting 
me one word about the matter, they took me to Pleas- 
ant Grove Camp-ground to a camp-meeting, in what 
was then Jackson (but now Putnam) County, Tenn., 
and there they had me solemnly dedicated to God in 
baptism by Dr. A. L. P. Green, of the Tennessee 
Conference. Now did my parents do wrong in this 
matter? 

CampbeUite. I think they did, for I have no doubt 
but that you cried, and were displeased with the whole 
thing, and I am sure you did not understand one 
single item of the duties of a Christian — very wrong! 

Methodist. Can you not see, then, that my birth was 



The Curry-comb. 



99 



a great wrong; for I did not understand one thing 
about the whole affair, nor did I know the most re- 
mote item of the obligations of the life into which I 
was entering; and more than likely the very first 
thing I did was to scream to the full capacity of my 
lungs. Was my birth a sin, think you? 

Campbettite. I must say I do not know. But have 
you seen what Dr. John A. Broadus, the learned 
Baptist divine, says in regard to the passage you 
quoted above? He says: "The association of infant 
baptism with the beautiful words, ' Suffer little chil- 
dren, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of 
such is the kingdom of heaven,' has largely turned 
away the attention of the Christian world from the 
impressive lesson which those words really teach — 
viz., that all true Christians are child-like." What 
do you say to this great divine's remark? 

Methodist. Just this: If all true Christians are 
child-like, surely all children are Christian-like; and if 
being child-like entitles all true Christians to baptism, 
surely being Christian-like entitles all children to 
baptism. What do you say? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I'll let Dr. Broadus answer 
that. 

Methodist. Then we will return to your point. Ac- 
cording to your logic, was it not very wrong in my 
parents to wash my face when I resisted with all my 
might, and screamed as loud as I could, and did not 
know one syllable about what good it would do? and 
was it not a sin almost unpardonable to hold my nose 
and force me to swallow bitter medicine when I was 
sick, seeing that I knew nothing of the science of 
medicine? 



100 



The Curry-comb. 



Campbellite, I think it was the duty of your par- 
ents to use all the means in their power for the health 
and development of your body and mind. 

Methodist But you think it a sin for them to use al] 
the means of grace for the health and development 
of my soul. That is your argument, is it? 

Campbellite. W-e-I-1, I do not believe in infant 
baptism. 

Methodist My parents are old now, and I want to 
defend them against your charge. I think they did 
not sin in having me baptized. They had read about 
the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, 
and they had heard the preachers preach about it — 
Baptists, Methodists, Campbellites, and others. They 
had heard them all say that the departure of Israel 
from Egypt was a good and very apt illustration of 
the departure of a sinner from the kingdom of Satan; 
that the sorrow and wailings of the Israelites, when 
beaten by the cruel task-masters, represented a sin- 
ner in the agonies of repentance; that the crossing 
of the Bed Sea represented the separation of a sinner 
from his past sins; that the many trials and afflic- 
tions of Israel in the wilderness represented the 
trials in the Christian warfare; and, finally, that the 
crossing of Jordan represented the Christian cross- 
ing the Jordan of death into the happy Canaan 
above. They had seen the Baptist and Campbellite 
in the pulpit with three books, standing two of them 
up on the book-board side by side, and then laying 
the third on top of the standing ones — the standing 
books to represent the walls of water which stood on 
either side of Israel as they passed through the Bed 
Sea, and the top book to represent the cloud that 



The Curry-comb. 



101 



hung over them — all this to prove that Israel was im- 
mersed "on dry ground!" (Ex. xiv. 22; xv. 19.) 
But as the Israelites carried all their infants with 
them when they left Egypt, my parents could see no 
harm in taking their infants into covenant relations 
with God, so they — 

Campbellite. Hold, brother; please let me have a 
few words. 

Methodist. Certainly; say on, brother. 

Campbell ite. I admit all you say about Israel being 
a type of the Christian Church, and the baptism they 
received as they were crossing the Red Sea a type of 
Christian baptism, but that does not prove infant 
baptism by a large majority. 

Methodist. Why not? Were not the infants that 
crossed the Eed Sea "our fathers," as well as their 
fathers were? Indeed, are not the babes that crossed 
the sea one generation nearer to us than their fathers 
were ? 

Campbellite. O yes, the babes were our fathers, and 
are one generation nearer to us than their fathers 
were, but they were babes when they crossed the sea, 
and did not know any thing about the Church, and 
therefore they were not baptized. 

Methodist Xow hear Paul: " Brethren, I would not 
that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers 
were under the cloud, and edl passed through the sea; 
and were edl baptized unto Moses in the cloud and. in 
the sea." (1 Cor. x. 1, 2.) Now here are three Ms: 
1. "All under the cloud." Does this all include the 
babes? Were they under the cloud? 

Campbellite. Certainly they were; no one ever 
doubted that, I reckon. 



102 



The Curry-comb. 



Methodist. Very well. 2. "All passed through the 
sea.' 5 Does this second all include the infants? Did 
they pass through the sea? 

Campbellite. Of course they did. Who ever doubted 
it? 

Methodist, All right. 3. "And were all baptized." 
Does this third all include the children? Were they 
baptized ? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, n-o. Certainly not, for they — 

Methodist, But stop. The first two alls mean all, 
and the third cdl means all but the babes; is that it? 
What chapter and verse will you give me for that? 

Campbellite, Well — none, but we Campbellites don't 
believe in infant baptism, and therefore they certain- 
ly were not baptized. 

Methodist. Well, if it affected the Campbellite theo- 
ory just the same, could you not prove just as easily 
that the babes ivere not under the cloud, and did not pass 
through the sea, as you can prove that they were not 
baptized? In other words could you not as easily 
prove by Scripture and logic that the babes were not 
included in the first two alls as you can prove that 
they were not included in the third all if it affected 
your theory just the same? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I don't know. 

Methodist. According to your theory the Israelites 
should have left their babes in Egypt, for they were 
"going out to serve the Lord;" and what did they 
know about serving the Lord — those little babes ? 

Campbellite. I think great evil comes of this taking 
babes into the Church. 

Methodist. So thought Pharaoh. He asked Moses: 
"Who are they that shall go? And Moses said. 



The Curry-comb. 



103 



We will go with our young and with our old, with our 
sons and with our daughters." (Ex. x. 8, 9.) But 
Pharoah said: "Not so; go now ye that are men, and 
serve the Lord." (Ex. x. 11.) So you see you stand 
with Pharaoh on this question. And, like you, Pharaoh- 
thought e^il would come of taking children into the 
service of the Lord, for he said to Moses: "Look to 
it; for evil is before you." (Ex. x. 10.) However, 
Moses would make no compromise with Pharaoh, for 
he took "six hundred thousand on foot that wert 
men, beside children." (Ex. xii. 37. ) And seeing that 
Moses would make no compromise with Pharaoh — 
the representative of the devil — my parents would 
make no compromise with the devil, but took me out 
of his kingdom, into covenant relation with God. I 
am sorry that you Campbellites stand w T ith Pharaoh 
and Satan on this question. My parents were 
grieved that the devil had struck a compromise with 
so large and honorable a body as you Campbellites, 
the stipulation being that you would not take your 
children out of his kingdom by baptism, but that so 
soon as the children got old enough to choose in mat- 
ters of religion you would enter into a contest with 
the devil for the deliverance of the dear children ; and 
if you fail to deliver them, you will sit down and 
weep, and wonder why your children love the kingdom 
and ways of Satan so well. Pity that you have taken 
a stand with Pharaoh and the devil on this question. 

Cam/pbettite. I think you are unkind in your re- 
marks. 

Methodist. Not unkind to tell the truth, I hope. I 
am very thankful that my parents made no compro- 
mise with the devil in my case. They gave me to the 



104 



The Curry-comb. 



Lord all the days of m y life; and if Hannah did not sin 
in giving Samuel to the Lord all the days of his life, 
I hope my parents did not commit an unpardonable 
sin in giving me to the Lord all the days of my life. 

Campbellite. Here, brother; have you seen what those 
who have npset your " Grub-ax " say about the infants 
that crossed the Bed Sea being baptized? They say 
that if the fact that infants crossed the Red Sea 
proves that they were baptized, the fact that donkeys 
crossed the Red Sea proves that donkeys were baptized 
also. What do you say to that? 

Methodist Well, that depends. Paul says: "All 
our fathers were baptized." (1 Cor. x. 2.) And 
you admit the babes that crossed the Red Sea were 
oar fathers. Now as I am a human, this proves infant 
baptism to me; and as I am not a donkey, it does not 
prove donkey baptism to me. But if those who have 
reviewed " Grub-ax " say that it proves donkey baptism 
to them, I have no dispute with them on that point, 
for they ought to know their tribe. Do you belong 
to the tribe of Israel or to the donkey tribe ? 

Campbellite. That is personal, and I don't like it. 
Of course there were children in the Jewish Church, 
but they have no right in the Church since the Day 
of Pentecost. I do not claim that there is any di- 
rect command to leave them out; but there are condi- 
tions expressed, such as: "He that believeth and is 
baptized;" "repent and be baptized." Now children 
cannot comply with these conditions, and this cer- 
tainly leaves them out — yea, makes it very wrong to 
bring them in. 

Methodist You have acknowledged that children 
belonged to the Jewish Church; but had you forgot- 



The Curry-comb. 



105 



ten tlie ten commandments which are recorded in the 
twentieth chapter of Exodus ? "Were not all the Jews 
bound to faithfully keep all these commandments? 
Were they not conditions of faithful membership in 
the Jewish Church? 

Campbell He. O yes; I think they were. 

Methodist. Now will you tell me which of these ten 
commandments a child of eight days understood? 

Campbellite. It did not understand any of them, of 
course. 

Methodist. And yet you admit that this utter igno- 
rance of all of God's commands did not disqualify a 
Jewish babe of eight days for circumcision, though 
all that were circumcised were " debtors to do the 
whole law." (Gal. v. 3. ) And an eight-days-old babe 
did not understand one word of the law, and was not 
capable of doing one item in the law; but your argu- 
ment is that the same ignorance in children since the 
Day of Pentecost wholly disqualifies them for mem- 
bership in the Church of God, though before the Day 
of Pentecost it did not affect their right in any way. 
Is that it ? 

Campbellite. "W-e-1-1, I don't think infants have any 
business in the Church. I know you said in " Grub- 
ax " that God included infants in all of his covenants, 
but did he include them in the "new covenant" men- 
tioned in Hebrews viii. 8? 

Method isf. If you will turn to Hebrews viii., and 
read verses 8 and 9, you will see that this new cove- 
nant was made "with the house of Israel and with 
the house of Juclah" — the same house which he 
"led out of Egypt;" and if you doubt there being 
children in that house, just read Exodus xii. 37, and 



106 



The Curey-comb. 



you will see tliat the house of Israel had children in 
it, and that they took them with them when they left 
Egypt. Yes, you admit that Israel in their depart- 
ure from Egypt were a type of the Church; now will 
you tell me what you Campbellites have in your 
Church that was typified by the little babes Israel 
carried out of Egypt? 

CampbelUte. I can't exactly tell. 

Methodist Now suppose all the mothers in Israel 
had said to their babes, " Sweet little darlings, our 
departure from Egypt is a type of the Church of 
God for all time, and you know nothing about God 
and his Church, and there are to be no babes in God's 
Church 6 after Pentecost ,' therefore we cannot take 
you with us. We are so sorry, but the will of the Lord 
must be done. Farewell, sweet little babes," and then 
ten thousand loving mothers had pressed the last warm 
kiss on the rosy lips of their babes, bathed their lit- 
tle heads with showers of freely-flowing tears, then 
laid them down on the cold soil of Egypt, and turned 
away with a heavy heart to serve the Lord ! How would 
you feel toward these mothers ? 

CampbelUte. I would think they were cruel, heart- 
less mothers. 

Methodist. You advise all mothers now who come 
into the Church of God to leave their babes out, but 
think if the mothers in Israel had left their babes out 
of the type they w r ould have been cruel and heartless. 
Where is your consistency? 

CampbelUte. I believe we will change the subject, if 
you please. 

Methodist. But let us sum up a little before we leave 
this subject. 1. According to all of God's covenants 



The Curry-comb. 



107 



with his people, infants have a right to a place in the 
Church. 2. The only right people had to baptism at 
Pentecost was based on the promise of God; hence 
Peter gave his reason for commanding them to be 
baptized in these words: "For the promise is unto 
you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
(Acts ii. 39.) Now if the promise to the parents en- 
titled them to baptism, did not the same promise to 
their children entitle them to baptism too? 

Campbell ite. No. "As many as the Lord our God 
shall call " says the text, and he has not called little 
babes. 

Methodist. What! "Suffer the little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not." (Mark x. 14) 
Is not this a call for children? 

Campbellite. To be honest, I must confess it is. 

Methodist, My parents had learned from the Bible 
that little children were put in the Church at eight 
days old in Abraham's day, by the command of God 
(Gen. xvii. ), and they did not find where God had 
ever commanded that they should be left out. They 
knew that all good people admit that all the babes go 
to heaven when they die; in fact, they knew that all 
good folks admit that children are to be found in 
every place where men and women are found, except 
in hell, so they could see no wrong in taking me into 
the Church of the "living God," who says of little 
children: "For of such is the kingdom [or Church] 
of heaven." (Matt. xix. 14 ) Did they do wrong? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I do not know, b-u-t — 

Methodist. Hold, brother; I am not through. My 
parents are old now, and according to nature they 



108 



The Cubby-comb. 



must soon stand before the great Judge, and you will 
allow me to speak a few more words in their behalf. 
They had read the eleventh chapter of Romans, 
where Paul uses an "olive-tree" to illustrate the 
Church of God, and they knew that an olive-tree with 
no buds, no little tender branches, nothing but a trunk 
and big limbs, would be a dead tree, and as the Psalm- 
ist David said, " Thy children like olive-plants round 
about thy table" ( Ps. cxxviii. 3.), they thought there 
could be no harm in putting the little olive-plants in 
the Church, as David said of himself: "I am like a 
green olive-tree in the house [Church] of God." (Ps. 
lii. 8. ) Now as the Church of God was the place for 
those who were like " olive-trees," my parents thought 
it would be a good place for those who were "like 
olive- plants," and they put me in. Nothing wrong 
in that, was there? 

Campbellite. You are getting me somewhat puz- 
zled. 

Methodist But Jesus, in John x. 10-17, takes a flock 
of sheep to represent his Church. All of this had 
been read and considered by my parents, and they 
knew it was the custom of all shepherds to put the 
old sheep and the lambs in the fold together, and 
they considered that all of God's covenants included 
children, and all the illustrations used by Christ and 
his apostles to represent the Church would take chil- 
dren in, so they thought it their duty to take me in. 
Surely you will not say they did wrong? 

Campbell ite. No; I cannot say that. I will "think 
on these things," for they are of more weight than 1 
had thought them to be. But I have seen a few per- 
sons who had been baptized in their infancy, and 



The Curry-comb. 



109 



when they came to years they were dissatisfied with 
it, and I think that is awful. 

Methodist But you will admit that such cases have 
a remedy — they can be baptized to their own notion, 
can they not? 

Campbellite. O yes; of course they can. 

Methodist My observation has been that where one 
who was baptized in infancy and properly trained 
becomes dissatisfied with his infant baptism when he 
comes to years, about one hundred are perfectly satis- 
fied, and could not be satisfied with their baptism at 
all if it had not been given them in infancy. So the 
great number who cannot be satisfied with any baptism, 
except it be administered in infancy, are left entirely with- 
out a remedy if their parents do not have them baptized 
in infancy; while the few, very few, who become dis- 
satisfied have a remedy. Now would it be better to 
leave one hundred in a condition to be dissatisfied, and 
entirely without a remedy, or one to be dissatisfied, and 
a remedy at hand? 

Campbellite. That puts a new feature on my objec- 
tion. There is not so much in it after all. 

Methodist Did you ever know any one to become 
dissatisfied with their name, and have it changed by 
an act of Legislature? 

Cam ph< llite. O yes. 

Methodist. Did it ever occur to you that you could 
make a sensible argument, based on that fact, against 
naming people until they get old enough to name 
themselves ? 

Campbellite. O no; I never thought of such a thing. 
Methodist. Now tell me the truth. Don't you know 
that you and your brethren make a great many (what 



110 



The Curry-comb. 



you call ) arguments against infant baptism, based on 
premises tliat you yourselves would call perfectly sil- 
ly if they were made by some one else and on some 
other subject? 

Campbellite. To be honest, I think we do. 

Methodist. If the Bible and reason were just half as 
strong against infant baptism as the prejudice of bu- 
rner sionists is, don't you think you could convince any- 
body with half sense that infant baptism is very wrong ? 

Campbellite. I am inclined to believe I could. 

Methodist. Is it not very inconsistent in you Camp- 
bellites to tell the world that you go by the Bible 
alone, and then when we show you that God com- 
manded parents to put their babes into covenant rela- 
tion with him, and ask you to show where he ever re- 
pealed that covenant, and you fail to do it, yet you 
leave them out by "inference" and "circumstances.'" 

Campbellite. I must admit that that is inconsistent. 
I will study this matter, I think, with less bias than I 
ever did before, for I now look at it in a different light 
from the way I did before. 

Methodist. Now I hope you will never again try to 
apply arguments to religions rights that will not apply 
to bodily or mental rights; indeed, which would work 
great evil to body and mind if applied to them ; and 
please be kind enough to never again charge my fa- 
ther and mother with sin because they believed my 
soul, with all of its interests, was committed to their 
care the same as my body and mind were, and be- 
cause they used the means of grace which God had 
appointed for the purification and development of 
my soul, the same as they used means fo^* the devel- 
opment of my body and mind. 



The Curry-comb. 



Ill 



Campbellite. I will never charge your parents with 
sin in this matter again. 

Methodist. Will you be careful to say to the moth- 
ers of little, babes that God has committed to their 
care the bodies, minds, and souls of their babes, and 
that God is the author of infant baptism, in that he 
baptized the little babes of six hunched thousand men 
at the crossing of the Red Sea; and as the mothers 
who came out of Egypt to serve the Lord brought 
all their babes with them, will you urge all mothers 
who come out from among the wicked to serve the 
Lord to bring their babes with them, that not one be 
left in the kingdom of Satan? 

Campbellite. I will, by the grace of God. 

Methodist. Then I bid you Godspeed. Now let me 
sum up the points that have been made. I showed: 

(1) that I was born with a body, a mind, and a soul; 

(2) that if being born with a soul gave me religious 
rights, being born with a bodg and a mind gave me 
bodily and mental rights; (3) that I was not consulted 
as to whether I wished to be born or not; (4) that 
when I was born I was not asked whether or not I 
wished to be washed, and dressed; (5) that in this 
my bodily rights were wholly disregarded; (6) that 
I was not consulted as to whether I wished to suck a 
piece of fat meat or to take milk from my mother's 
breast ; ( 7 ) that here my bodily rights were interfered 
with again; (8) that all that was done for the good 
of my body was done as my parents saw proper to do 
it, and without my will or consent; (9) that my par- 
ents not only failed to get my consent, but often 
forced me to do that which I did not want to do ; ( 10 ) 
that all the resistance I could make and all the 



112 



The Curry-comb. 



screaming I could do did not save me from swallow- 
ing the bad-tasted m edicine, notwithstanding I did not 
understand one word about the science of medicine; 

(11) that no one said that my parents did wrong in 
these matters, but all said they did exactly right; 

(12) that my parents used all means to develop and 
cultivate my mind without consulting me, and before 
I knew any thing about the duty or importance of 
mental cultivation; (13) that they taught me my 
letters before I had the most remote idea of the value 
of letters; (14) that they made me go to school be- 
fore I had the slightest knowledge of the worth of 
an education; (15) that no one made any fuss about 
my parents doing wrong by taking away my mental 
rights; (16) that the argument which Campbellites 
apply to religious rights will in no case apply to bod- 
ily or mental rights; (17) that when my parents 
looked after my religious welfare, just as they looked 
after my bodily and mental welfare, all immersionists 
cried out, "What a great sin ! They are taking away the 
little fellow's religious rights;" (18) that my parents 
had read about Hannah lending Samuel to the Lord 
"q,ll the days of his life" and God blessed her and her 
son Samuel; so they could not believe that God would 
curse them for doing that for which he had blessed 
Hannah, and they gave me to the Lord in baptism; 
(19) that all admit that the departure of Israel from 
Egypt is a type of sinners leaving the world and com- 
ing into the Church; (20) that all the babes were 
taken out of Egypt when their parents went out; 
(21) that it is right to take infants out of the world 
into the Church; (22) that all the people who crossed 
the Red Sea were baptized, babes not excepted; (23) 



The Curry-comb. 



113 



that "all out fathers were baptized," and as donkeys 
are not our fathers, the fact that they crossed the Red 
Sea does not prove donkey baptism ; (24) that Carop- 
bellites agree with Pharoah about infant baptism; 

(25) that Moses made no compromise with Pharoah; 

(26) that my parents made no compromise with the 
devil; (27 ) that the devil has struck a compromise with 
the Campbellites about their babes; (28) that all the 
types and all the illustrations used in the Bible to 
represent the Church give children a place in the 
Church; (29) that all the nations, countries, and 
places contain children except hell; (30) that Camp- 
bellites make arguments against infant baptism, based 
on premises that they themselves would call perfectly 
silly if they were made by some one else, and on some 
other subject; (31) that God is the author of infant 
baptism, and that he has — 

Campbellite. Hold on, brother, that is enough. I 
am no longer opposed to infant baptism. I see no 
wrong in it, but I now see that it is the will of the 
Lord that parents should look after the bodily, men- 
tal, and spiritual interests of their children, and use 
all the means that God has put in their reach for 
their good, and infant baptism is within the reach of 
all and should be used by all. 

Methodist Amen! Now you talk sensible. God 
bless you and keep you steadfast. " Lo, children are 
a heritage of the Lord." (Ps. cxxvii. 3.) 

"BE DIPPED OR BE LOST." 

Your people do not like to have it put just that 
way, but that is the true Campbellite theory. If you 
meet any who get offended because I put it that way, 
8 



114 



The Curry-coxb. 



just ask thein if they do not teach that there is no 
pardon without immersion, and if they are true 
Campbellites they will say, " Yes." " Therefore being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ/' (Boni. v. 1.) Not through 
water. And: " The love of God is shed abroad in our 
hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us," 
(Eom. v. 5.) Is there any way by which we may 
Icnoic that the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
except by experience? "But the fruit of the Spirit is 
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, 
faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no 
law." (Gal. v. 22, 23.) The law requires no more 
than these graces. But let us notice a few cases in 
which men may be justified by faith, have the love of 
God in the heart, and have all the fruits of the Spirit, 
and yet be lost for the want of immersion, according 
to Oampbellism. (1) Here is a man who has been 
justified by faith, has the love of God in his heart, 
and has all the fruits of the Spirit; he has been im- 
mersed, but he was immersed when an infant, and he 
must be lost because he was taken to the water too soon. 

(2) Another man makes the good confession, is jus- 
tified by faith, has the witness and fruits of the Spirit, 
starts with the minister to the water to be immersed, 
but by some mishap he is killed right at the wafer's 
edge — he is lost because he reached the water too late ! 

(3) Another is justified by faith, has all the fruits of 
the Spirit, but had " clean water sprinkled upon him " 
according to the Bible mode (Ezek. xxxvi. 25) 3 and it 
was done while he was an infant. He is lost because 
he was baptized by the wrong }node, and at the wrong 
tune, (-i) Many others who have been justified by 



The Curry-comb, 



115 



faith, and who have all the fruits of the Spirit — whose 
moral and religious lives would compare favorably 
with the very best Campbellite in the land, and they 
were baptized after they believed, which is the right 
time according to Campbellism, but the mode was 
sprinkling, therefore they must be lost on account of 
how a thing was done. (5) A hundred sinners are 
working in a mine. They have tunneled more than 
a mile into the earth. A faithful minister of Jesus 
Christ enters the tunnel with Bible in hand, and just 
as he reaches the inner end of the tunnel where the 
men are at work, a mighty crash is heard, and it is 
soon ascertained that one half — the outer half — of the 
tunnel has fallen in, and that the minister and all the 
men must surely perish before they can possibly be 
rescued. They have lights by which they can see to 
read, they have the Bible which contains all that God 
ever revealed to the world on the subject of man's sal- 
vation, they have a faithful minister of Jesus Christ, 
and only one bucket of water; here are all the things 
necessary to save a poor sinner, according to Camp- 
bellism, except not quite enough water! The preacher 
opens his Bible on these words: "Therefore we con- 
clude that a man is justified by faith without the 
deeds of the law." (Bom. iii. 28.) He adds this 
text: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth 
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness." ( Bom. iv. 5. ) He remarks : " This 
text suits your case; it tells us that the ungodly are 
to be justified by faith, without works. Tou all belong 
to that class, so this text applies to you." So he goes 
on, preaching to them the "gospel of Christ," which 
is " the power of God unto salvation to every one that 



116 



The Curry-comb. 



believeih" (Rom. i. 16.) The hundred men all "re- 
pent and believe the gospel." They "worship and 
bow down," they "kneel before the Lord their mak- 
er." (Ps. xcy. 6.) They "ask and receive; seek and 
find." (Matt, vii. 7, 8.) " The love of God is shed 
abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is 
given unto them." (Rom. v. 5.) Having a little 
wine which they used for medical purposes, and a lit- 
tle bread for food, the minister gave them the holy 
sacrament to their comfort, and they all rejoiced to- 
gether, while the " Spirit itself beareth witness with 
their spirits, that they are the children of God." 
(Rom. viii. 16.) And "hereby they know that they 
dwell in Christ, and he in them, because he hath 
given them of his Sjjirit." (1 John iv. 13.) Here is 
all the experience of grace, all the fruits of the Spirit, 
but alas! not enough water for immersion. Poor fel- 
lows! They must all be lost eternally for lack of wa- 
ter ! (6) A ship is wrecked in mid-ocean. Ten men 
who are sinners get on a large piece of the broken 
ship. They have a Bible. They read and believe 
all of God's promises to poor sinners. They give 
their hearts to God, and have all the experience of 
any of the classes I have mentioned before — no want 
of irate)', but the preacher is not there to dip them. 
Unfortunate men! lost world without end, right in an 
ocean of water for the want of some one to clip them. 
But some friend may say: " Let one dip the other, and 
then let one of the others dip him." But hold! Ac- 
cording to your theory, it takes a Christian to make a 
Christian, and all men are sinners until they have 
been dipped, and you would not accept even immer- 
sion as Christian baptism if it was done by a sinner. 



The Curry-comb. 



117 



Now let him who can believe the theory of "be 
dipped, or be lost/' but as for me and my house, 
please excuse us; "For the Lord seeth not as man 
seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but 
the Lord looketh on the hmrt" (1 Sam. xvi. 7.) 

Honest reader, consider 1 Corinthians xiv. 23-25: 
" If therefore the whole Church be come together into 
one place, . . . and there come in one that believ- 
eth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is 
judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart 
made manifest; and, so falling down on his face lie will 
worship God % and report that God is in you of a truth." 
He went into the house of worship a sinner, and the 
whole work of his conversion was done before he came 
out. He did not have to leave the place of worship, 
and go in search of a river or creek to complete the 
work of salvation. Had you thought of this? A 
minister of the gospel may go into a little log church 
in the country; there he may preach the gospel, ad- 
minister the sacrament — in fact do every thing that 
God has authorized any minister to do for the salva- 
tion of men — may sing, pray, exhort, beseech, and 
weep over poor sinners — but in that church 'not one soul 
can be saved, according to Campbellism; you must 
leave that church, and go in search of -water to com- 
plete the job, or all that is said and done in the 
church goes for naught. As a Methodist preacher I 
am not able to see why complete salvation may not 
be reached in that little log church, on a dark night, 
while the worship is being conducted by the light of 
a tallow-candle; and as all other things that pertain 
to the gospel may be done there, without any objec- 
tion even from a Campbellite, I see no harm in doing 
the baptizing there too, so I do all that the gospel re- 



118 



The Curry-comb. 



quires in tlie way of worship, and the ordinances of 
God's house right in that little Jog church. I can have 
some little — and but very little — patience with a law- 
yer who plays upon a technicality to defeat the ends 
of justice, but from ministers who teach that men are 
damned because of a mode, or if the mode is to their 
liking, because it was not done at the right time — from 
all such ministers and their teachings, good Lord, de- 
liver us. 

Had you noticed that the word immerse does not 
occur in King James's translation, nor in the new ver- 
sion of the Bible? Had you noticed that the " sprink- 
ling of water" is often connected with cleansing? 
Take the following: "And thus shalt thou do unto 
them, to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying 
upon them." (Num. viii. 7.) "Then will I sprinkle 
deem wetter upon you, and ye shall be clean." (Ezek. 
xxxvi. 25.) Had you noticed that where there is a 
clear case of immersion in the Bible, it was connected 
with a great curse? Note the following. When God 
sent the flood, it is said: "And all flesh died that 
moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and 
of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth 
upon the earth, and every many (Gen. vii. 21. ) This 
was a clear case of immersion, and it was death to all 
that were immersed. Noah and his family escaped 
immersion, and were saved. God had a controversy 
with the Egyptians: "And the Lord overthrew the 
Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters 
returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, 
and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea 
after them; there remained not so much as one of 
them." ^ (Ex. xiv. 27, 28.) This is a clear case of 
immersion — not plunging under and jerking out the 
same moment, but immersion sure enough; and it was 
death to those immersed. Strange that our immer- 
sion friends never refer to these, the only clear cases 
of immersion in the Bible — that is, of the immersion 
of human beings. God sprinkles the earth to bless 
it, but destroys Johnstown with immersion. 



THE PUMP. 

The Water Pumped out of Campbellism. 

(119) 



PREFACE. 



"Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of »al- 
vation." (Isa. xii. 3.) From these wells we draw the "water of 
life." (Eev. xxii. 17.) Jesus says: "If any man thirst, let him come 
unto me, and drink. He that belie veth on me, as the Scripture hath 
said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But thii 
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him should re- 
ceive)." (John vii. 37, 39.) As water is used in cleansing defiled 
garments, so the Spirit of God (or water of life) is used in cleansing 
souls defiled with sin. Seeing some have mistaken the water that 
forms rivers, lakes, and ponds for the water of life, I have invented 
a pump — a double-action instrument — which will, I trust, pump ow 
this water, and pump in the water of life. In cleaning out thi. 
Campbellite well you need not be surprised if we find old boots 
buckets, brickbats, dead frogs and rats, and a host of other unclean 
things so well calculated to produce ill health and bad temper in 
those whc use the water. If we succeed in our undertaking, we wil) 
have done all earnest seekers after truth a real service. 

(121) 

| 



INTRODUCTION. 



1. Immersion either is or is not the Bible mode of baptism. 

2. Water baptism either is or is not a condition of pardon. 

3. A sinner either can or cannot be justified without water. 

4. A sinner either can or cannot be justified by faith only. 

5. The Spirit of God either does or does not come in direct con- 
tact with the heart in the work of regeneration. 

To these, and many other minor points, this little work is devoted. 
Hoping it may be a benefit to many, an injury to none, I send it 
forth with my best wishes for all who may read it. 

Bethel, Tenn., March 4, 1884. 

(122) 



CHAPTER IV. 
The Pump. 



Oampbellite. Well, well; here is my old Methodist 
friend, the "Grub-ax" man. I am glad to see you. I 
have had a time of it since I saw you. The Church ex- 
pelled (or withdrew from) me, as they call it, because I would 
not confess that I was very sorry I had my children bap- 
tized. They said I had violated the word of God and ig- 
nored the teaching of the Church ; so they left me out in the 
wicked world, as they say. 

Methodist. I am glad to see you. I believe I told you 
there would likely be some trouble about the baptism of your 
children. How are you feeling over the matter? 

C. I am convinced that all our boasting about no creed, 
every one having his own private opinion, and the like, does 
very well until one's judgment comes in contact with the 
opinion of our elders, and then — well, somehow they man- 
age to turn him out of the Church. But I remember when 
we parte 1 last you spoke of another grubbing some day. If 
you have time, I should like to ask you a few questions about 
the mode of baptism. 

M. I will gladly spare the time. 

C. How did John Baptist baptize? 

M. I know nothing whatever about it except what John 
and the divine Scripture writers say. 

C. What do they say? Give me chapter and verse, for I 
am going to get close after you now on the mode of baptism 

M. John says: "I indeed baptize you with water" (Matt, 
iii. 11); "I indeed have baptized you with water; but he 
shall baptize you with the Holv Ghost" (Mark i. 8) 

(123) 



124 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water" 
(John i. 26) ; " But he that sent me to baptize with water, 
.... the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost M 
(John i. 33). Jesus says: "Fir John truly baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" 
(Acts i. 5). Peter says: "The Holy Ghost fell on them as 
on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of 
the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with wa- 
ter; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 
xi. 15, 16). It is written, "In the mouth of two or three 
witnesses shall every word be established " (2 Cor. xiii. 1). 
I have given you the repeated testimony of John, the testi- 
mony of Jesus and Peter, so I suppose John really baptized 
with water. What do you think of it? 

C. O I believe nothing is baptism but immersion. It is 
written that John baptized "in Jordan — in the river Jor- 
dan," and that settles the question as to the mode of bap- 
tism. I can almost see John dipping them by the thousands. 

M. You think John, Jesus, and Peter were mistaken 
about its being with water, and that John baptized in water. 
That is quite bold. Will you give me one verse that says 
he baptized in water ? 

C. No, but he went down into the water, and baptized, 
then came up out of the water. That ought to satisfy any 
reasonable man that he immersed in water. Come, lay aside 
your prejudice, and I will convince you that you are wrong 
about the mode of baptism. 

M. It is written, "John did baptize in the wilderness" 
(Mark i. iv). Do you suppose John actually dipped the 
people into the soil of the wilderness f 

C. No, of course he did not. 

M. Baptizing in Jordan, you say, evidently means dipping 
into the water of Jordan; but baptizing in the wilderness 
does not mean dipping into the soil of the wilderness. I 



A Treatise ox the Mode of Baptism, etc. 125 



suppose, then, the word in only means dip when it is con* 
nected with Jordan. Is that your idea? 

C. W-e-U, I think when John baptized in Jordan he 
dipped the people into the water of Jordan. 

M. "And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan" 
(Josh. iii. 17.) Now, if it had been written, "The priests 
stood in the midst of Jordan and baptized the people," would 
it not have been plain that they dipped the people into the 
water of Jordan? 

C. I-I think so. 

M. In several passages where it is said John baptized with 
water, it is also said that Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
I will give you one passage: "But he that sent me to bap- 
tize with water .... the same is he which baptizeth with 
the Holy Ghost" (John i. 33). Now, if we can find how 
Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost, it will give us some 
light on the mode of baptism. 

C. That is so. Xow read Acts ii. 2, and you will see how 
they were baptized with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. They 
were certainly immersed in the Holy Ghost, for it reads, 
"And it filled all the house where they were sitting." If 
that was not immersion, I should like to know what is. The 
house was full, and they were in the house. 

SI TVas it the Holy Ghost that filled the house? 

C. Of course it was. 

M. Please read the whole verse. 

C. Acts ii. 2 : "And suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the 
house where they were sitting." 

11, Ah! It was sound that filled the house. You and 
your brethren ought to quit trying to blindfold the world 
with your wrong construction of Acts ii. 2. This is not tbi 
Srst time I have heard you at it 



126 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



C. Sure enough, it was sound that filled the house; how 
did I happen to overlook that? 

M. Like you happen to overlook a great many othei 
things, I suppose. Now, let me give you a few passages 
which will show how Holy Ghost baptism was administered : 
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is 
come upon you" (Acts i. 8); "The Holy Ghost fell on all 
them which heard the word" (Acts x. 44); "I will pour 
out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts ii. 17); "He hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear " (Acts ii. 33). 
Come upon, fell *on, pour out, and shed forth, are the only 
terms used in the Word of God to show how Jesus baptized 
with the Holy Ghost. Do you think Jesus dipped men and 
women into the Holy Ghost f 

C. Of course he did not ; but John certainly dipped peo- 
ple into the water of Jordan, I think. 

M. John baptized with water, Jesus baptized with the 
Holy Ghost. Jesus's mode was pouring, John's mode was 
dipping, you think! If pouring the Holy Ghost upon the 
invisible man is baptizing with the Holy Ghost does it not 
seem that pouring water upon the visible man would be bap- 
tizing with water? 

C. It may to you, but there are so many other passages 
that settle the mode of baptism so clearly that all you have 
said has but little weight with me. The Bible teaches that 
the water in which baptism was performed was not brought, 
but they always found it in its native place. 

M. " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
baptized?" (Acts x. 47). Does this not look like the water 
was to be brought? 

C. I must confess that it does; but I think they went to 
water, for nothing is baptism but immersion, and they must 
have gone to water. 

M. Take another case, Acts ix. 11 : Saul was in the house 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 127 



of Judas (verse 17); Ananias "entered into the house'' 
(verse 18); Saul "arose and was baptized." Now, is it 
not plain that Saul was in the house of Judas, standing on 
his feet, when he was baptized. 

C. It does look a little like it, but I suppose there was a 
pool in Judas's house, or Ananias and Saul went to a creek, 
or pool, and there Saul was immersed. 

M. You suppose. Why not suppose that a river ran 
through Judas's house, or that a band of angels came from 
heaven, and on their bright wings bore Ananias and Saul 
away to Jordan, and sung a beautiful song while Ananias 
took Saul down into the water and dipped him? As well 
suppose that as any thing else. How is it that you boast so 
much about being the only people who take the Bible alone, 
and yet you have to suppose so much to make immersion the 
Bible mode of baptism ? 

C. We will drop Saul's case, if you please, and I will 
give you some Scripture that will settle this question beyond 
dispute. 

M. Very well, let me have it. 

C. Jesus says, "Except a man be bom of water and ol 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 
iii. 5). "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life" (Rom. vi. 4). See also Col. iii. 12. The 
terms <( birth ,} and "burial" certainly refer to the mode of 
baptism, and that makes it very clear that immersion is the 
mode. 

M.. Truly the mode of baptism is quite accommodating. 
Agreeably to your idea it represents a birth; or, if you like, 
it may represent a burial. As if we should say cotton is a 
good picture of snow ; or, if you like, it represents charcoa 1 
as well. The birth and burial of a man are the most remo* 



128 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



periods of his earthly existence, and they are as unlike a& 
snow and charcoal; yet according to your idea of the mode 
of baptism it is a picture of a birth or a burial. A birth 
brings one into this world, and is hailed with joy; a burial 
takes him out of this world amid deep mourning. Birth is 
caused by life, burial takes place because of the absence of 
all life. Still, baptism represents a birth or a burial, as you 
like. No, my brother, you have made a mistake; baptism 
in no way represents a burial. 

C. Certainly baptism is a sign of Christ's burial. You 
won't gainsay that, I hope. 

M. Christ will settle this question: "An evil and adul- 
terous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign 
be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas : for as Jo- 
nas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, 
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in 
the heart of the earth " (Matt. xii. 39, 40). Observe, 1. 
Jesus was speaking of his buHal. 2. Of his burial he says, 
" No sign shall be given but the sign of Jonas." Now, you 
say baptism is a sign of his burial. You or the Saviour 
must be wrong. More than likely you are wrong. What 
about it? 

C. W-e-1-1, how will you explain that passage? It says 
" buried with him by baptism ; " and that must mean immer- 
sion, for you know when we bury a thing we cover it. Sup- 
pose your child dies, and the undertaker sprinkles a little 
dirt on its head and calls it a burial, how would that suit 
you? 

M. Just as well as if he had plunged it about one foot 
under the dirt and jerked it out immediately, as you do 
when you dip people. When my friends are buried I want 
them to remain so until the resurrection. The passage ha? 
no reference whatever to the mode of baptism, as I under 
stand it 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 129 

C. I am astonished at you ! What does it mean ? 

M. Read Romans vi. 2-11, and you will find these ex- 
pressions, viz.: (1) "Dead to sin." (2) "Baptized into 
Jesus Christ" — not into water. (3) "Baptized into his 
death " — not into Jordan. (4) " Buried with him by 
baptism into death." ("Dead to sin.") (5) "We also 
should walk in newness of life." (" If a man be in Christ 
he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, 
all things are become new." 2 Cor. v. 17.) (6) " We have 
been planted together in the likeness of his death." (7) 
" We shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (8) 
" Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin 
might be destroyed." ("And they that are Christ's have 
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Gal. v. 24.) 
(9) "We should not serve sin." (10) "He that is dead is 
freed" — or justified — "from sin." (11) "Dead indeed un- 
to sin." (12) "Alive unto God through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." ("I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; 
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; and the life which I now 
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." Gal. 
ii. 20.) Now, it seems clear that the apostle was " discours- 
ing of the l buriaV of the 'body of sin' by the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost;" the quickening of those "dead in tres- 
passes and in sins " to a new life in Christ ; the " transla- 
tion" of a sinner from the " kingdom of darkness" " into the 
kingdom of his dear Son." (Col. i. 13.) Certainly no refer- 
ence is had to the mode of baptism. 

C. Yes, that is the way with you Methodists: you always 
see some great spiritual work in every thing. I know noth 
ing of this great spiritual change about which you talk. 
The passage has reference to immersion in water, and you 
ought to know it. 

M. In Rom. vi. 4, speaking of how this change was wrought; 
the apostle says: "Like as Christ was raised up from the 
9 



130 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



dead by the glory of the Father." Think a moment. Were 
any human hands employed in raising Christ from the dead? 

C. Certainly not. He was raised by the power of God 
alone. 

M. Did you ever see any one raised up from immersion 
dy the power of God alone, without human hands? 

C. Certainly not. The man who dips them always raises 
them from the burial, of course. 

M. Then, where is the likeness between the burial and res- 
urrection of Christ and your manner of immersion? Cer- 
tainly those who placed the body of Jesus in the tomb did 
not raise him from the dead. 

C. I never saw that point before, and I wish to dismiss 
the subject, and take up the design of baptism. 

M. But you referred to Col. ii. 11, 12, and I wish to call 
your attention to a few points in that passage before leaving 
this subject. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: bur- 
ied with him in baj3tism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead." Notice, (1) Whatever this passage re- 
fers to as being done was done "without hands," there- 
fore it could not be immersion in water. (2) It is " circum- 
cision," "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." 
" Circumcision is that of the heart, in the sjnrit" (Rom. ii. 29). 
Paul certainly does not use circumcision in one sense when 
writing to the Romans, and in quite another when writing 
to the Colossians; so it is clear that this passage refers to 
a great work wrought in the spirit of man by the Holy 
Ghost, "through the faith of the operation of God," and 
not to the immersion of the body in water. 

C. There, now! You see that change which you call a 
great spiritual change was wrought by circumcision. Now. 



A Treatise ox the Mode of Baptism, etc. 131 



If a fleshly ordinance could produce such a change, why 
cannot immersion in water produce all the change necessary 
tc becoming a Christian? 

M. The apostle is speaking of spiritual circumcision, of 
w hich fleshly circumcision is only a sign or picture. 

C. You astonish me ! Who, but a Methodist, ever dreamed 
of a spiritual circumcision? You ought to know that it was 
a fleshly rite, given to the Jews to distinguish them from 
other nations. You ought to study your Bible more, then 
you would not commit such glaring blunders. 

M. Moses, Jeremiah, and Paul seem to have made the 
same " blunder " you say I have made. Hear them: "Cir- 
cumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no 
more stiff-necked/' Deut. x. 16; " Circumcise yourselves to 
the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts/' Jer. 
iv. 4; "Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the 
flesh," but "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit" 
Rom. ii. 28, 29. Here Paul says very emphatically that 
circumcision of the flesh " is not circumcision/' It is oftly 
a sign or picture of spiritual circumcision. 

C. Just give me chapter and verse, will you? 

M. Yes, sir. Paul says of Abraham, when he received 
Mr cumcision of the flesh, "And he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
bad, yet being uneirmmeised," Pom. iv. 11. Observe, (1) 
Abraham was righteous before he received circumcision of 
the flesh, therefore fleshly circumcision could not have been 
a condition of pardon. (2) His righteousness was by faith — 
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him foi 
righteousness," Rom. iv. 3; Gen. xv. 6. Now, I will say, 
once for all, that all of the external rites and ordinances of 
the Church, in all ages, have only been signs or pictures of 
an inward, invisible work of grace. The sacrament of bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper are pictures; the former, nf 



132 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



the new birth ; the latter, " of our redemption by Christ's 
death." There is nothing in any or all of them that can 
cleans a soul from sin. That must be done by the power 
of God's grace alone. There is but one baptism — " One 
Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv. 5). The Holy 
Ghost "shed forth" on the soul cleanses it from all sin, and 
takes it into spiritual relation to Christ; and " clean water" 
shed forth on the body in baptism takes us into visible rela- 
tion to Christ, or into the visible Church. 

C. What blasphemy! Holy Ghost baptism ended w T ith 
.he apostolic age, and the " one baptism " you refer to is im- 
mersion in water. I am sorry that the sects will not stop so 
much nonsense about Holy Ghost baptism. Why is water 
baptism so called in the Bible if it is only a picture? 

M. Why do Old and New Testament writers call circum- 
cision of the flesh circumcision, when it is only a sign or 
picture, as I have shown by Scripture? 

C. W-e-1-1, I do not know. 

M. On entering a parlor, why do you say, " There is Gen- 
eral Lee," when it is only his picture? 

C. Because usage has made that mode of speaking a law 
of our language. 

M. Very well. Jesus says of the sacramental bread and 
wine, "This is my body;" "this is my blood." Now, do 
we eat the real flesh and drink the very blood of Jesus in the 
Lord's Supper? or are bread and wine only pictures of his 
body and blood f 

C. Somehow, my head feels a little dizzy, and I do not 
understand the matter just now. 

M. But you said " Holy Ghost baptism passed away w T ith 
the age of the apostles." Will you be so kind as to give me 
chapter and verse on that statement? 

C. We — I — am a little giddy just now, and cannot think 
'>f any Scripture that sustains my assertion. But Mr. Camp- 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 133 

beU was a great man, and that is what he said about it; and 
we all preach it that way. 

M. To be consistent, you ought to quit preaching it that 
way, or stop your boasting about " taking the Bible alone " 
as your guide. 

C. It would be very hard for me to see as you do on the 
work of the Spirit. 

M. No doubt of that. The Pharisees lost sight of the 
work of the Spirit in a great measure, by deifying ordi- 
nances, and they became self-righteous and proscriptive. 
So with all who attach undue importance to immersion. 
They are likely to presume to be the only people who know 
every thing perfectly and do every thing correctly. Is it not 
common for your ministers to proclaim themselves the only 
true ministers of the New Testament in the world, and rep- 
resentatives of the only true Church under the sun? 

C. Yes, I must say we have attached great importance to 
immersion, and have had but little to say about the work of 
the Spirit, except to ridicule the sects for teaching that he 
operates directly on the heart; and we do teach that we 
belong to the only true Church in the world. But I wish 
to discuss the design of Baptism. We hold and teach 
that no sinner can be saved from past sins without immer- 
sion in water; and the New Testament sustains our doctrine 
fully. 

M. Before a physician can know what remedy is needed, 
he must know where the trouble is. So by learning what 
part of our being is the sinner, we may be able to discuss the 
matter more intelligently. "To the law;" "The soul that 
sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. xviii. 20); "Tribulation and 
anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Rom. ii. 
9) ; " The law 7 of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul " 
(Ps. xix. 7) ; " That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." 
(John iii. 6.) Here we learn, (1) that sin is in the soul. 



134 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



(2) it is the soul that needs conversion, or a spiritual birth. 
Now, do you believe that water washes sin from the soul, or 
does the Spirit of God wash away our sins? 

C. Nonsense. You are always talking about the Spirit 
washing the souls of men. Did n't you know that the Spirit 
of God is a talking Spirit, and does all his work by talking, 
and not by direct contact with our souls, as you teach? We 
read the words of the Spirit in the New Testament, obey the 
gospel, or submit to immersion, and do religion. That is 
all there is of it. 

M. But tell me how sin is gotten out of the soul. David 
prayed to God in this language : " Wash me thoroughly from 
mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (Ps. li. 2). 
Now, what is the manner of this washing? Does God ap- 
ply water to the soul, or does he use his Spirit in washing a 
soul? 

C. In the act of obedience a sinner becomes a Christian, 
but certainly not by contact of God's Spirit with the soul. 
That is nonsense. 

M. After speaking of a very wicked class of men, Paul 
says: "And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but 
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the 
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. vi. 
11). Notice that the washing, sanctifying, and justifying 
were all done by the " Spirit." But you say, Not so. 

C. That ? s the way with you Methodists ! Do n't you know 
that God's Spirit is a talking Spirit, and does his work by 
talking and not contact t 

M. Hear Paul again: "He saved us by the washing of 
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he 
ghed on us abundantly" (Titus iii. 5, 6). Does that look 
like talking or touching? 

C. O that has reference to immersion in water. 

M. It does ! What an id^a ! God saves sinners by shed 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 135 

ding the Holy Ghost on them abundantly ; and that mean* 
immersion in water? " 

C. That's what Mr. Campbell taught, and we all teach 
it that way. 

M. Take another passage: "For by one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body" (1 Cor. xii. 13). The last words of 
the twelfth verse read, "So also is Christ;" thirteenth verse, 
"*For by one Spirit," etc. Paul was considering how the 
various members get into Christ, the "one body," and he 
says they are "baptized into" him "by one Spirit." 

C. There now! That means just this: By the direction 
of the Spirit we are all baptized, etc. So you see it is by 
the words of God's Spirit we are directed to immerse men 
on condition of faith, repentance, and confession, and not 
by contact. 

M. Did you ever baptize anybody? 

C. Yes, sir. 

M. Did you do it by words, or did you take hold of the 
subject (as you immerse for baptism) and plunge him un- 
der the water? 

C. O — o-f — course I took hold of the subject; but I can- 
not believe the Spirit takes hold of sinners and pats them 
into Christ, 

M. Please read Romans viii. 2: "For the law of the 
Spirit of life in Jesus Christ hath made me free from the 
law of sin and death." The idea seems to be this: While 
in sm, we are under sentence of death eternal; but when 
we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," the Spirit freed its 
from this sentence — baptizes us " into Jesus Christ.' This 
seems clear, does it not? 

C. Isot so clear to me. Can you give me an illustration 
that will make it plain to me? 

M. I will try. Speaking of the coming of Christ, ane 
^f his majesty, the prophet says: "He is like a refiner'* 



136 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



fire, and like fuller's soap. And lie shall sit as a refiner and 
jurifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and 
purge them as gold and silver " (Mai. iii. 2, 3). Notice 
that Christ is said to be Mite fuller's soap — that is, the use a 
fuller makes of soap in cleansing cloth illustrates the man- 
ner in which Jesus cleanses a soul. Now, you say all the 
washing done by the Spirit is done by the words of the 
Spirit. Suppose in passing your wash-shed you should see 
the soiled garments, soap, and water in the tub, and the 
washer- woman talking fluently and very earnestly about 
the process of cleansing clothes, and finally she says: "Only 
four steps necessary to the cleansing of filthy garments, (1) 
Believe they are soiled; (2) apply soap; (3) put them in 
the tub; (4) immersion." Then she plunges the tub, 
clothes, and all into the water, and jerks them out quickly, 
and declares that the washing is done, the garments are all 
clean. What would you think? 

C. I would think she was an idiot. Everybody knows 
that the soap, water, and washer-woman must all come in 
contact with soiled clothes in order to cleanse them. What 's 
the use of dipping the tub into the water to cleanse the clothes 
which are in the tub? 

M. It is just about as necessary as it is to plunge a man 7 ? 
body into water to cleanse the soul which is in the body. 
Now, if your theory is true, and the prophet gave us the 
right illustration when he referred to the fuller's soap, your 
washer-woman washed your clothes right ; but she did not 
wash them at all, as you admit. Now, what about your the- 
ory? 

C. W-e-1-1 — h-how do you understand that fuller's soap 
to illustrate a sinner's conversion? 

M. The clothes, soap, and water are all in the tub, and 
do amount of labor done on the outside of the tub can pos- 
eib 1 y have any thing to do with cleansing the clothes. The 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 137 

work of cleansing must be done inside the tub. So the soul 
ig in the body, and no dipping or soaking of the body in 
water can have any thing to do with cleansing the soul; 
that must be done by the Spirit working "within" us. "It 
is God which worketh in you" (Phil. ii. 13). "God is a 
Spirit." 

C. But what about the "refiner's fire?" 

M. " He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and 
he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold 
and silver" (Mai. iii. 3). Now, suppose we try to purify 
fcome gold or silver by your theory for purifying sinners. 
We will place the crude metal in a crucible, and then take 
four steps: (1) Beiieve there is metal in the ore; (2) it 
xnust be separated from the dross; (3) place in the cruci- 
ble; (4) plunge crucible and all into the water. Will 
that process purify the gold or silver? 

G Of course it will not. The crucible must be placed 
in a heated furnace, and intense heat must be brought to 
bear on the contents of the crucible until it is thoroughly 
smelted; then the metal separates from the dross. When 
the refiner sees his image reflected from the metal, he pro- 
nounces it pure. 

M. Just so when a sinner is deeply penitent. God's Spirit 
stirs him up "as an eagle stirreth up her nest" (Deut. xxxii. 
11); and, like David, his "heart" is "hot within him, and 
while he thinks on his deplorable state the fire burrs" (Ps. 
xxxix. 3). The Spirit of the Lord is in his heart " as a burn- 
ing fire shut up in" his "bones" (Jer. xx. 9), melting his 
soul to tenderness and submission. He now believes "in 
the Lord Jesus Christ," and his sou] reflects the image of 
Jesus, and he is saved, and 

C. Hold, brother! you've got me confused. I want t~ 
be done with this refining business. You said awhile gone 
that water baptism is a sign or picture of Holy Gh'St bap 



138 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



tism. If that be so, how can you baptize infants? Thej 
know nothing about Holy Ghost baptism, faith, or right- 
eousness either. 

M. Abraham was "ninety-nine" years old when he was 
circumcised (Gen. xvii. 1), and circumcision of the flesh 
was a "sign" of spiritual circumcision (Rom. iv. 11); and 
all that were circumcised were "debtors to the whole law" 
(Gal. v. 3). God said to Abraham, "He that is eight days 
old shall be circumcised" (Gen. xvii. 12). But what did 
a babe of eight days know about doing the whole law? 

C. Why, nothing, of course. 

M. Then, if infants of eight days were proper subjects for 
circumci&ion, knowing nothing of its significance, can there 
be any impropriety in baptizing little babes that do not know 
what is signified by baptism? 

C. You have got me so "befuddled'' I hardly know what 
I am at. Tell me why you object to our teaching that im- 
mersion is essential to pardon. 

M. Because the Bible does not sustain your theory. 

C. Does the Bible oppose it ? If so, give me chapter and 
v^erse. I do not wish to teach an error. 

M. Will you promise that if I will show your teaching 
on this point to be contrary to the doctrine of the Bible you 
will abandon it? 

C. I certainly will. But you must give chapter and 
verse. 

M. I will do so. " For there is one GoA and one medi- 
ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 
ii. o). Notice, there is but one mediator, and your theory 
makes three — viz., Christ, water, and the administrator of 
immersion. That puts the salvation of a sinner in men 
and in water, so that a sinner may read the word of life, 
and trust in Jesus with all his heart; may "ask" "seek/' 
"knock" and although Jesus has assured such that they 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 139 



should "receive," "find," the door of mercy should be 
"opened" (Matt. vii. 7, 8), all avails nothing without wa- 
ter and some one to dip the poor penitent. So your plan 
of salvation has three mediators; the Bible plan has but 
one. 

C. We do not teach that water saves, or that one man 
can save another ; and who says we do slanders us. 

M. What does it matter? If a sinner cannot be save 
without immersion in water, it is clear tjiat he cannot LJ 
saved without water and some one to dip him. Hence H 
matters not whether the water, the dipper, or Christ saves, 
for if water or the administrator be absent, the result is the 
same as if Christ were away. Without water and an admin- 
istrator, the sinner is as hopelessly damned as he would be 
without Christ. 

C. We teach that it is the act of obedience in immersion 
that saves, and not water. 

M. But that act of obedience cannot be performed with- 
out water and one to do the dipping. So you have not re- 
lieved the difficulty. 

C. Have you any other objection to urge? 

M. Yes, sir. Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God 
that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, «... 

and I baptized also the household of Stephanus Foi 

Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" 
(1 Cor. i. 14-17). Observe: (1) If water baptism is essen- 
tial to pardon, Paul left all the Corinthians in their sina 
except one household and two other persons, and he thanked 
God for it. (2) Christ left out one of the essentials when 
he commissioned him to preach, for Paul says, " Christ sent 
me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Again he says 
the gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every 
rme that bolieveth" (Eom. i. 16). Notice: (1) The gos- 
pel saves " 3 very one that believeth." (2) If baptism wa* 



14:0 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



a part of the gospel that saves, and Paul was sent to preach 
that gospel, he was sent to baptize; but he says he "was not 
sent to baptize." Again, in the same Epistle and to the 
same people, Paul said, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten 
you through the gospel " (1 Cor. iv. 15). So you see they 
were saved "through the gospel," and not by water. 

C. Yes, yes. You and I differ about Paul's writings. I 
will give you the true and only way by which a sinner must 
become a Christian: (1) He must believe that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God ; (2) he must repent ; (3) he must make 
the good confession ; and (4) he must be immersed. Now, 
by this order immersion is the fourth condition of pardon, 
and without it the other three steps — viz., faith, repentance, 
and confession — amount to nothing. It is clear then that 
after the three steps have been taken, the whole salvation 
of the sinner depends on immersion. 

M. I am obliged for this honest statement of your doc- 
trine, but I do not remember any Scripture that will sus- 
tain it. The only faith you require of a sinner is assent to 
the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and you put 
repentance after faith, and finally all depend* on immersion. 
I think you fail to get a correct idea of the faith that justi- 
fies the sinner. 

C. Philip required nothing of the eunuch but to "believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts viii. 37). Or» 
that faith he immersed him; and what right have we to re- 
quire more? 

M. But we are talking about justification from past sins, 
Do you think the eunuch's sins were remitted at the time 
Philip baptized him, or was he a good man before that? 

C. Of course his sins were pardoned then. How could 
he have been a good man before he was immersed? 

M. Now, my brother, in regard to two points in the eu- 
nuch's case I think you Campbellites are laboring under a 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 141 

great mistake: (1) As to his sins being pardoned at the time 
Philip baptized him, and (2) as to the mode of his baptism. 
Let us take a little time on his case. 

C. Very wall; and if you show that his sins were not 
pardoned at the time he was baptized, and that he was not 
immersed, I shall be surprised. 

M. Can you give me one passage of Scripture which in- 
timates that his sins were pardoned at that time ? 

C. No, sir ; but what makes you think he was good before 
his baptism? 

M. I have several reasons. (1) He came all the way 
from Ethiopia to "Jerusalem for to worship' 1 (Acts viii. 27). 
(2) He must have believed in a coming Saviour, as all Jew- 
ish worship was based on faith in a coming Messiah. (3) 
It is not probable that a sinner would travel over three 
hundred miles in order to worship at the altar of the " true 
God." (4) There is nothing connected with the account of 
his baptism from which we could infer that he was a sin- 
ner, or that his sins were pardoned at the time of his bap- 
tism. Hence I conclude that he was a devout Christian 
before he was baptized. 

C. Well, well ; now just think of it! God sent Philip all 
the way from ''Jerusalem unto Gaza" to baptize a man who 
was already a Christian. Why, he never believed that Je- 
sus Christ was the Son of God until Philip taught him. 
What was the use of sending Philip to him if he was al- 
ready good? 

M. What use was there in "Aquila and Priscilla " teach- 
ing Apollos — that "eloquent" and diligent teacher of "the 
thirl gs of the Lord" — "the way of God more perfectly?" 
(Acts xviii. 24-26). Certainly not that his sins might be 
pardoned, but that he might be a more intelligent teacher. 
N~ow, as I understand the eunuch's case, he was a devout 
worshiper of God, but living away down in Ethiopia, hie 



142 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



opportunities for learning about "Him who died on Cal 
vary " were very poor. Of course, I suppose, he had heard 
about the crucifixion of Christ, but he had never been shown 
how the prophecy of Isaiah had been fulfilled in the death 
of Christ, and he was still looking for "Shiloh" to come. 
Philip showed him " the way of God more perfectly ; " and 
when he saw how perfectly all the circumstances connected 
with the death of Jesus agreed with the prophecy of Isaiah, 
he said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
Then and there he accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah for 
whom he had been looking, and whom he had been wor- 
shiping; and with this additional light, he was baptized 
and " went on his way rejoicing." Do the Scriptures con- 
tradict my view of the eunuch's case? 

C. I do n't know that they do ; and I must confess that 
your idea looks somewhat reasonable. I confess that I could 
not prove by the Bible that his sins were pardoned at the 
time of his baptism, but I think his baptism is the clear- 
est case of immersion in the Bible. If he were not im- 
mersed, I am no longer an immersionist. 

M. What is there about his baptism that looks like im- 
mersion to you? 

C. Why, "They went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch, and he baptized him;" and they "came up 
out of the water" (Acts viii. 38, 39). "Down into" "up 
out of" and that not immersion? Certainly the eunuch was 
immersed. 

M. Be sareful. You say "down into" and "up out of" 
is immersion in this case. If that be so, immersion is not 
baptism at all, for baptism in this case came after the "down 
into " and before the " up out of." They " went down into 
the water, and he baptized him" Then they came up out 
of the icater. So you see "down into" was one thing, "bap- 
tized him" another, and "up out of" another. Just one 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 143 

question: The word "into" occurs divers times in the Bible. 
Can you give me one case when it means immerse, in you » 
judgment, except where it is connected with baptism? 
C. I cannot think of one just now. 

M. Now, let us go a little farther back, and consider thb? 
case more closely, as you think it is the clearest case of im- 
mersion in the Bible. Who was this eunuch? 

C. He was a man " of great authority under Candace, 
Queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her 
treasure" (Acts viii. 27). 

M. Very well. Then he must have been an educated 
man as well as a man of good sense, or he would not have 
occupied the high position of a man "of great authority" 
md the queen's treasurer. What w r as he doing when Phil- 
ip went to him ? 

C. He was reading the "Prophet Esaias" (verse 30) — a 
prophecy concerning the crucifixion of Christ, found in the 
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. 

M. What did Philip do? 

C. " Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same 
scripture, and preached unto him Jesus" (Acts viii. 35). 
Now, according to our usage, we would say Philip took the 
prophecy which the eunuch was reading for his text, and 
preached Jesus to the eunuch. 

Of ccurse you know the Bible was not divided into 
chapters and verses at that time. 

C. Certainly ; that was man's work many years after the 
baptism of the eunuch. 

M. Of course you know, too, that the prophecy which the 
eunuch was reading is not all contained in the fifty third 
chapter of Isaiah. 

C. Yes. It begins, I reckon, at the thirteenth verse -of 
chapter fifty-two. 

M. One other question: When a minister takes a text, \* 



144 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



it not expected that lie will preach the doctrine contained 
in his text, and in the scripture immediate! connected with 
his text? 

C. He would not be expected to contradict any thing taught 
in his text or in connection with it. 

M. Very well. Now, suppose Philip in his sermon to the 
eunuch had said : " Christ was not ' a Man of sorrows/ he did 
not 'bear our griefs' nor 'carry our sorrows/ he was not 
'wounded for our transgressions' nor 'bruised for our in- 
iquities/ we are not 'healed with his stripes/ 'the iniquity 
of us all' was not 'laid on him'" — what would the eunuch 
have thought of his sermon? 

C. He certainly would have known that it was a flat 
contradiction of all that Isaiah said on those points in 
connection with Philip's text; and if he had any respect 
for the prophecy of Isaiah he could have had none for 
Philip. 

M. In Isaiah lii. 15, in close connection with Philip's text, 
we find the only expression from which he could have got- 
ten an idea of baptism in that connection, and it reads, "So 
shall he sprinkle many nations." You think if Philip had 
contradicted those other statements of the prophet he wouki 
have been unworthy of the eunuch's respect, but when he 
baptized the eunuch you think he dipped him, notwithstand- 
ing the prophet said " sprinkle." " O consistency ! " Do you 
think the eunuch was dipped? 

C. I must confess it looks a little doubtful. 

M. To say that Philip dipped the eunuch is to charge him 
with a total disregard for the doctrine taught in connection 
with his text. Will you do that? 

C. No. I must give up my former notions about the 
eunuch's baptism. As to the mode of baptism, I will make 
up my mind fully at another time. Let us go back to 
faith." Paul says, "He that cometh to God must believe 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 145 



fchat he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
seek him" (Heb. xi. 6). 

M. But Paul does not say believing there is a God who 
is able to reward all who seek him justifies the sinner. Of 
course a sinner must believe that much before he will seek 
God. The faith by which a sinner is justified is a faith of 
reliance or committal — a faith which relies wholly on God, 
and commits all to him. 

C. Now, you want to begin a tedious talk about " justifi- 
cation by faith only." That is abominable to me. What 
do you mean by faith of reliance or committal? 

M. Paul will explain: "I know whom I have believed, 
and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have 
committed unto him" (2 Tim. i. 12). What had he "com- 
mitted" to God? " Wherefore let them that suffer according 
to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him " 
(1 Pet. iv. 19). It is one thing to believe that "Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God," and another thing to "believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ." When the jailer asked, "What must 
[ do to be saved? " he was told to "believe on the Lord Je- 
ms Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." You 
would have told him to believe that "Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God." 

C. Somehow I fail to see the difference between believe 
on or in Christ and believing that he is the Son of God. I 
wish you would illustrate " faith of committal," as you call it. 

M. Very well. There is a lawyer whom you believe to 
be the ablest lawyer in Tennessee, and you may believe it 
with all your heart, yet you may not feel the need of his 
service ; or feeling this need, you may fail to ask for his serv- 
ice, and you will not be benefited by him. But if you com> 
mil your cause to him 9 you may receive benefit from him. So 
a sinner may have no doubt as to Jesus beirg the Son of G)d, 
and still remain a sinner ; but if he will repent of his sins. 
10 



146 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ/' committing all k 
him, shall be saved. 

C. You think a sinner must repent before he can exercise 
faith that commits all to God. How can a man repent be- 
fore he believes? You Methodists talk about degrees in 
faith. We require of a sinner no faith except to " believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." That is all the Bible 
requires. 

M. As to degrees in faith, we read of (1) "little faith," 
Matt. vi. 30; (2) "great faith," Matt. viii. 10; (3) "weak 
faith," Rom. xiv. 1; (4) "strong faith," Rom. iv. 20; (5) 
"working faith," Gal. v. 6; (6) "dead faith," James ii. 20; 
(7) "faith that saves the soul," Heb. x. 39. The devil be- 
lieves that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (James ii. 19), 
and perhaps he assents as fully to all the truths revealed in 
the Word of God as you do ; but little stress is laid on faith 
of assent. As to repentance coming before faith of reliance 
or committal, we read the words of Jesus in Mark i. 15: 
" Repent ye, and believe the gospel." Would you have it, 
" Believe ye, and repent the gospel ? " In Acts xx. 21 : " Tes- 
tifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance 
toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." In 
Matt, xxi 32, Jesus said to the Pharisees: "And ye, when ye 
had seen it, repented not afterward that ye might believe." 
Here it is taught that saving faith is impossible without re- 
pentance. In fact, repentance brings the sinner to where 
he can be justified by faith. Now, you always boast of tak 
ing the Bible alone as your guide; will you give me one 
verse that reads, "Believe and repent," as you always put 
it? 

C. W-e-1-1, I do n't remember one now. 

M. Why, then, do you always say " faith and repentance," 
when in the Bible it is always put "repentance and faith V' 
According to the Bible plan of salvation, repentance is a] 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 147 

ways demanded of a sinner before he can exercise faith of 
reliance, which commits all to God noiv, and secures justifi- 
cation; but by your plan, stopping with the faith that mere- 
ly assents to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God (just what 
the devil believes, Luke iv. 33, 34), you change the order, 
then tell the world that you are the only people who teach 
exactly as the Bible teaches. Either you or the New Testa- 
ment writers are wrong. Which is wrong? 

C. I — t-h-e — fact is I do not know any thing about a faith 
of committal. I know I believe "Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God," and I committed myself to the minister, and he 
committed my body to the water about one second, and I 
have counted myself a Christian ever since I came up from 
the "liquid grave;" and I know nothing of a "great spirit- 
ual change" about which you talk. You teach that a sin- 
ner is "justified by faith only," and I think that is contrary 
to Scripture and reason ; and I think it horrible and danger- 
ous doctrine. 

M. Paul does not seem to view the doctrine as you do, 
After making an unanswerable argument on the subject, he 
gave his conclusion in this language: "Therefore we con- 
clude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of 
the law" (Rom. iii. 28); "But to him that w T orketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
counted for righteousness" (Rom. iv. 5); "Therefore be- 
ing justified by faith, we have peace with God through ®ur 
Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. v. 1). You Campbellites reach 
a conclusion very different from that reached by the apostle. 
He excludes all "deeds of the law" and "works;" you in- 
clude immersion as a condition of justification. You con- 
clude that a man is not justified by faith without works, or 
faith only; but Paul's conclusion excludes works of aU 
hind, and makes faith the only condition of justification. 

C. Hold, brother! Now, let me give you some Scriptuw 



148 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



which will show you the incorrectness of your doctrine, 
Believers are said, in the Scriptures, to be "justified by 
Christ" (Acts xiii. 39), "by grace" (Rom. iii. 24), "by his 
blood" (Rom. v. 9), "by the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 
Cor. v* 11), and "by works" (James ii. 24). If justifica- 
tion was by faith only, it could not be by Christ, by grace, 
by his blood, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by 
works. So you see you are altogether wrong when you say 
justification is by faith only. 

M. Right honestly, brother, do you believe the passages 
you refer to speak of what is required of a sinner in order 
to his justification? or do they refer to what Jesus did for 
sinners when he died on the cross that they might be justi- 
fied ? To be very plain, do you believe a sinner must create 
the Christ by whom he is justified, shed his blood, and furnish 
tht grace necessary to justification? We have been talking 
about what is required of a sinner in order to justification 
from past sins, and you use the passages referred to as though 
they were written as conditions of justification from past sins. 

C. What do those passages mean, then? 

M. I suppose no one but a Campbellite ever thought of 
their meaning any thing but about this: Jesus died — shed 
his blood — that grace might be given to the lost, that they 
might be "saved by grace through faith." Christ giving 
his life, his blood, and furnishing the grace, while the sin- 
ner exercises u faith only" Christ's part was to give hi& 
life, his blood, his grace; and the sinner's part is to "believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ," and " be saved." 

C. But James says we are justified by works. 

M. Was James speaking of a sinner being justified from 
past sins? or was he talking about a righteous man being 
justified in the sense of approval when he obeyed the con> 
n j and of God? 

C. You puzzle me now. You know we teach that the 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 149 

Acts is the only book in the Bible which tells a sinner what 
to do to be saved ; but when we are pressed, we generally re 
fer to James. Isow, if I say James had reference to a sinner 
being justified from past sins, away goes our theory about 
the Acts being the only book which gives the conditions of 
pardon; and if I say he was speaking of a righteous man's 
being approved of God, or justified by his works, I give up 
our strongest passage in favor of a sinner's justification by 
works. So I do not know what to say. 

M. What special case was James speaking of when he said, 
"By works a man is justified?" 

C. He was speaking of Abraham being "justified by 
works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar " 
(James ii. 21). 

M. Do you understand that Abraham was justified from 
past sins, or became a righteous man, by offering his son 
upon an altar? or, as a righteous man, did he offer his son 
in obedience to God's command, and was justified in this 
act of obedience? 

C. I — eh — well, I do n't exactly know. 1 

M. You do n't? In Genesis xv. 6 we have this statement. 
Abraham "believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him 
for righteousness." When Paul made his sublime argument 
on justification by faith, or "the remission of sins that are 
past" (Rom. iii. 25), he quotes Gen. xv. 6 as a proof-text 
(Bom. iv. 3). Hence we learn that Abraham was justified 
by faith. In Gen. xxii. 8-11 we have an account of Abra- 
ham offering Isaac upon an altar, in which act James says 
he was "justified by works." Now, the offering of Isaac 
was about twenty-two years after Abraham had been justi- 
fied by faith. So you see it is a great perversion to say that 
James had reference to the justification of a sinner "from 
Bins that are past." A sinner is justified from past sins, "by 
faith only" and he remains in a justified state by faith and 



150 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



works. First "make the tree good, and his fruit good/' fo* 
"a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matt. vii. 18, 
xii. 33) ; " For ye are all the children of God by faith in 
Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). And God approves the good 
works of his children. So after we become children by faith, 
we are said to be "justified by works." 

C. I am obliged to you for that explanation, for I must 
confess I never was well pleased with our construction of 
James ii. 24. We made him contradict Moses and Paul in 
regard to Abraham's justification. I see now that Paul 
was speaking of the condition on which he became right- 
eous, and J ames was speaking of how he remained righteous, 
and there is no contradiction. Can you give me an illustra- 
tion that will make justification by faith any plainer to my 
mind? 

M. I will try. " For the kingdom of heaven is like unto 
a man .... which went out early in the morning to hire 
laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with 
the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vine- 
yard" (Matt. xx. 1, 2). The hiring men to work for us, 
you will see, illustrates the manner of a sinner coming into 
the service of God. Now notice : (1) No work was required 
of the hirelings until after the agreement was made — " when 
he had agreed with them, .... he sent them into his vine- 
yard." (2) No pay was demanded, or given, before the agree- 
ment was made. (3) The agreement was made upon the 
promise of one " penny a day ; " hence the laborers entered 
into the agreement on faith only. (4) Their faith in the 
master of the vineyard pleased him, and they were justified 
u his sight, and taken into his service. (5) Being in his 
service, he approves all they do according to his will. Now. 
can you give me one passage that says we are justified by 
immersion? 

C. W-e-1-1 — no. But I wish to call your attention to 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 151 

Acts ii. 38 : " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, 
it seems to me Peter teaches there that immersion is essen- 
tial to pardon. 

M. What we want is a pure heart, is it not? 

C. Yes, sir. 

M. Do you teach that a sinner's heart cannot be purified 
without immersion in water? 

C. Not exactly. (1) Faith purifies the heart; (2) repent- 
ance purifies the life; (3) the good confession shows sincer- 
ity of purpose; and (4) immersion perfects conversion. 
That is wiiat we teach. 

M. What a mess! After the heart is purified by faith, 
you say, repentance must begin. Repent of what? Jesus 
says, " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" 
(Matt. v. 8). Repent because they are prepared to see God ? 
But repentance, you say, purifies the life, and confession 
shows sincerity. Now, you have a sincere man with a pure 
heart and a pure life, and still in a lost condition ! That is 
truly monstrous doctrine ! 

C. But you have not explained the text I gave you. I 
wish you to explain 1 Peter iii. 21 also: "The like figure 
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us"- There, 
you see Peter says in so many words baptism saves us ; and 
he said at Pentecost, "Be baptized Jo?" the remission of sins " 
Ah! that gets away with your doctrine. You can't get 
around that! 

M. I am glad you gave me those two texts trom Peter. 
I suppose he knew what he meant by them. Notice his 
language carefully — "The like figure whereunto even 
baptism doth also now save us." Can baptism be both a 
figure of salvation and a condition of salvation? 

C. W-e-1-1 I do n't exactly know. 

M. What was Peter talking about? 



152 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



C. He was talking about how Noah and his family were 
"saved by water." 

M. Very well. Now turn to Genesis vii 1-10, and let 
us see how Noah was "saved by water." (Verse 1) "And 
the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into 
the ark; for thee have I found righteous before roe in this 
generation." (Verse 4) "For yet seven days, and I will 
cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights." 
(Verse 7) "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, 
and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the 
waters of the flood." (Verse 10) "And it came to pass 
after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the 
earth." Please observe: (1) It did not take the flood to 
make Noah righteous — "For thee have I found righteous 
before me," saith the Lord, before one drop of the flood was 
upon the earth; (2) Noah was in the ark seven days before 
the rain began to fall; (3) the water did not touch Noah, 
nor save him: he was saved in the ark 3 bit faith — <; By faith, 
Noah .... prepared an ark to the saving of his house" 
(Heb, xi. 7). Now, I hope you are able to see what Peter 
meant when he said baptism was a "figure." Certainly he 
used the word "baptized" in its proper sense at Pentecost; 
so according to his explanation of baptism, it is a "figure" 
"sign" or "picture" of spiritual cleansing. 

C. From Peter's language, it seems that the people at 
Pentecost had to be immersed before they could receive the 
"gift of the Holy Ghost;" and that makes it clear to my 
mind that water baptism always came before Holy Ghost 
baptism, and was one of the conditions on which the Holy 
Spirit was received. That is the New Testament order, so 
I think. 

M. Turn to Acts x. 43, 44, and let us see: "To him giw 
all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever be- 
lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 153 



yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them 
which heard the word." Let us consider: (1) Peter was 
preaching the first sermon that was ever preached to the 
Gentiles, hence it was of the utmost importance that he tell 
them just what was essential to their justification; (2) he 
did not say one word to them about water until after the 
Holy Ghost had fallen on " all who heard the word ; " (3) 
he preached faith as the only condition of pardon — " Who- 
soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins; " [4] 
he preached the same condition of pardon that was preached 
by "all the prophets;" (5) soon as Peter announced faith as 
the condition of pardon, all who heard the word accepted 
Christ through faith, received "remission of sins through 
faith in his name," were filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
rejoiced; (6) after they had received "the gift of the Holy 
Ghost," and "magnified God" (verses 45, 46), "'then an- 
swered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well 
as we?" (verse 47). Now, Peter and the six Jewish brethren 
who went with him to the house of Cornelius were the 
only persons who had any right to object to the Gentiles 
being brought into the visible Church by water baptism. 
Peter seemed to think there could be no objection, as they 
had "received the Holy Ghost" as well as the Jews. I 
wish to know if you had been in Peter's stead, with your 
views of water salvation, would you not have mentioned 
''water''' long before Peter did? Would you not have told 
them there was no "remission of sins" without immersion? 
that "remission of sins" through the name of Jesus, by faith 
Only, was a horrible doctrine, dangerous and hateful? 

C. See here, you are getting personal! Of course you 
know we teach that there is no remission of sins without 
immersion. But you made one point I had never noticed 
before 



154 



The Ecclesiastical Pump 



M. What is the point? 

C. That Peter preached the same condition of justified 
lion which was preached by all the prophets. But since 
you showed me so clearly in " Grub-ax " that the present 
Church is a continuation of the Jewish Church, I can see 
no reason why the condition of salvation should not be the 
same. 

M. But what about your doctrine? If you say "remis- 
sion of sins" is not " through faith" in the name of Jesus, 
you brand Peter, all the prophets, Paul, and all the rest of 
the apostles, and J esus himself, with libel ! Jesus says, "As 
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in 
him shall not perish, but have eternal life 5 ' (John iii. 14). 

C. That seems to be strong; but the word only is not 
there. Now, you teach that justification is by faith only, 
and you have not produced one passage in support of your 
doctrine that has the word only in it. 

M. Jesus takes the manner in which the bitten Israelites 
were saved from death by looking on the "fiery serpent" as 
an illustration of the manner in which he saves sinners by 
faith. As they looked on the serpent with the natural eye, 
and received bodily cure, so we look on Jesus with the eye 
jf faith, and receive spiritual cure. Xow, turn to Numbers 
xxi. 7-9, and you will find an account of the bitten Jews 
being saved. In verse 8 we read, "And it shall come to 
pass that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it 
shall live." This is the language of God to Moses, telling 
him the condition on which the bitten men could be saved. 
Now, suppose Moses had said to the people, "The word 
mly does not occur in this text, therefore looking only will 
not save you ; in order to live, four steps are required : (1) 
you must look; (2) you must make a sin-offering; (3) you 
must make the good confession ; and (4) you must wash your 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc 155 

bodies in water to perfect a cure" — what would you think 
of Moses? 

C. I would think him very presumptuous. 

M. Just so; and you deal with the Word of God just as 
Moses would have done had he acted as mentioned above, 
"O Lord, keep back thy servant also from presumptuous 
sins!" (Ps. xix. 13). Jesus says, "As Moses lifted up the 
serpent, .... so shall the Son of man be lifted up, that 
whosoever believeth in him" shall "have eternal life;" and 
you say, "That is so, provided the believer is immersed, but 
not so if he is not immersed." How is that? 

C. W-e-1-1 — it has to be that way to fit our theory. 

M. I say to you, "I will give you $150 for your horse." 
You say, " That is a trade." I pay you the cash ; then put 
your bridle and harness on the horse, and hitch him to your 
buggy. You say, " How is that? " I reply, " I did not say 
horse only. Before a horse can change owners, four steps are 
required: (1) The horse; (2) the bridle; (3) the harness; 
and (4) the buggy." So I give the horse the whip, and 
drive away. How would that suit you? 

C. Not at all. I should think you were violating every 
principle of justice and honesty. 

M. I would be dealing with you precisely as you deal with 
the Word of God. It is strange that a man of common sense 
will not see how foolish it is to talk about the word " only" as 
you do, until his bridle, harness, and buggy are taken from 
him on his use of the word. 

C. I must confess you have given me new light on the 
doctrine of justification by faith only; and if you will ex- 
plain two more passages to me as clearly as you have ex- 
plained all I have given yori, I do not see how I can con- 
tinue my objections to justification by faith only. Ananias 
said to Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins 
calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts xxii. 16). Now 



156 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



it lo As like baptism washed away Saul's sins, for it reads, 
" Be baptized, and wash. away thy sins." How about it? 

M. Notice carefully, "Arise, and be baptized." Now, sup- 
pose I say arising is baptism, because it reads, " Arise, and 
be baptized." How would that logic suit you? 

C. Not at all. All who know the use of language know 
that simply expresses two acts, (1) arise, (2) be baptized ; 
and the two acts are by no means the same. 

M. Notice again, " Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord " Now, if he had said, " Be 
baptized, washing away thy sins," your doctrine could find 
some support here; but it reads, "Wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord" Observe, Saul was not told 
how to arise, nor how to be baptized, but he was Lold how 
to wash away his sins; that was to be done by "calling 
on the name of the Lord." It does seem that any man 
ought to know that the water of baptism cannot wash sin 
out of the soul. 

C. That is satisfactory. But Galatians iii. 2) puzzles 
me : " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ." Now, we cannot be saved out of Christ, 
and baptism puts us into Christ — then, how can we be saved 
without water? 

M. What do you understand by the term "into ChHbt?" 

C. I cannot tell just what it means ; for you know that we 
do not admit that Christ has an invisible spiritual kingdom, 
into which men are brought by invisible spiritual baptism, 
as you teach; but when I read Komans x. 10, "With the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness," and the verse pre- 
ceding the one I gave you (Gal. iii. 26), " For ye are al 
She children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," also 1 Co- 
rinthians xii. 13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one body," and when I notice what Peter said about 
the C^ntiles being baptized with the Holy Ghost, and the 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 157 

condition on which they received it, I confess I am be- 
wildered. 

M. What did Peter say about it? 

C. Well, he does not mention but one condition, as you 
showed from Acts x. 43. Then in Acts xv. 7, when he was 
explaining the matter to his Jewish brethren, he said, " God 
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should 
hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Again, in re- 
gard to the same matter, he said, in Actsxi. 17, "Forasmuch 
then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who 
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." I say, when I read 
all these passages, it looks a little like there is such a thing 
as a great change being wrought in the soul by the Holy 
Ghost "through faith in Jesus Christ," and that this won- 
derful change brings us into spiritual union with Christ, 
and may be what is meant by the expression " baptized into 
Jesus Christ;" but I do not know how it is. 

M. I think you have a very correct idea of this matter. 

C. But somehow I cannot see how justification can be by 
faith only. It seems to me that is suspending a man's sal- 
vation on too slender a thread. There seems to be nothing 
tangible or comprehensible about it. I always feel that men 
who want to be saved from past sins ought to do something. 
We believe in doing religion. 

M. " Go work in my vineyard " is the command ; but Je- 
sus does not say work your way into the vineyard. Speak- 
ing of salvation from past sins, Paul says, "Not of works, 
lest any man should boast'' (Eph. ii. 9). But you Camp- 
bellites will have works as a condition of justification. Per- 
haps that is why you boast so much about being the only 
Church. When Jairus "fell down at Jesus' feet, and be- 
sought him" for his dying daughter, and there came one 
and said to him, "Thy daughter is dead, trouble not the 
Master," the ruler was ready to despair ; but Jesus said fo 



158 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



him, "Fear not; believe only, and she shall be made whole* 
(Luke viii. 50). "A slender thread/' you say? "This is 
the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 
John v. 4). "Not of works, lest any man should boast." 
Suppose a beggar comes to your door and asks for dinner. 
You say, " Yes, sir ; take that ax, and cut that load of wood 
_nto fire lengths, and you shall have your dinner." He cuts 
the wood. He is then under no obligation to you, but you 
are obligated to him. He can demand his dinner, for he has 
paid for it. So he can go on his way boasting, "I am un- 
der obligation to no man ; I pay my own way." But sup- 
pose you give him his dinner simply at his request, then 
boasting "is excluded." So w^ith the sinner who comes to 
God for pardon. He remembers that God is not "wor- 
shiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing" 
(Acts xvii. 25); but he "feels after him" by faith, "and 
finds him" (Acts xvii. 27), and all "boasting is excluded 
by the law of faith" (Rom. iii. 27). 

C. I begin to see the whole matter in a different light. 
The idea I get from you is that we get into spiritual union 
with Christ 6 6 hj faith only" but this union is perpetuated 
by "faith which worketh by love" (Gal. v. 6) — that is, faith 
and works are united so soon as we get into Christ. Yes, 
ye&; I must indorse that. I have not been well settled in 
my faith since I heard your closing remarks in one of your 
speeches when you were discussing this point with Elder S. 
Our theory has never seemed altogether consistent with th$ 
Word of God since. 

M. Can you repeat the remarks? 

C. I think I can. You said, "It is not written in the 
Word of God, 'He that is dipped in water shall be saved;' 
but it is written, 'He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life' (John iii. 36). It is not written, 'He that is 
not dipped in water shall be damned;' but it is written, 'He 



A Tkeatise dn the Mode of Baptism, etc. 159 

that believeth not shall be damned' (Mark xvi. 16). It was 
never said to a penitent sinner by any apostle, ' Be dipped, 
and thou shalt be saved ;' but it was said, 'Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved' (Acts xvi. 31). 
Jesus never said to the blind, lame, or sick, 'According to 
your dipping, be it unto you;' but he did say, ' Accord iug 
to your faith, be it unto you' (Matt. ix. 29). He never said 
to one whose sins he had pardoned, ' Thy dipping hath saved 
thee;' but he did say, 'Thy faith hath saved thee' (Luke 
vii. 50). Hence I conclude that a sinner's justification is in 
no way dependent on an ocean, sea, gulf, lake, river, creek, 
pond, or pool." I confess I was somewhat upset by those 
remarks. The fact is, I have been afloat ever since we 
parted. In "Grub-ax" you upset me on infant baptism; 
and now it seems that you will convert me to the Methodist 
theory of "justification by faith only." I hardly know 
what to do. I want to do right. 

M. You speak of " Grub-ax" — have you seen what Elder 
Lipscomb has to say of " Grub-ax" in the Gospel Advocate f 

C. Yes, sir; I read all he wrote about it? 

M. I did not know but what the Elder had converted 
you. He had a great many things to say against " Grub- 
ax." 

C. I know he did; but I noticed that he did not touch 
some of its strongest points; and of those he pretended to 
answer he only made broad assertions, but failed to produce 
the proof. He showed very clearly that he was not able 
to meet your arguments, and he seemed to be angry with 
you about it; in fact, he seemed to be in a bad humor with 
nil the editors who have given " Grub-ax" favorable notice, 
und all the preachers who have circulated it. He was as a 
*'bear robbed of her whelps." Some things in the Elder'f 
review were amusing to me. 

M. What were the amusing points? 
3* 



160 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



C. You know he began his review in his paper of August 

8, 1883. In his first article he said he disliked to review 
" Grub-ax," because your points were "so shallow/' and 
your "treatment of the subject so superficial;" then he oc- 
cupied about three times as much space in his review as is 
contained in "Grub-ax;" and after all failed to overturn 
one single point in "Grub-ax," besides failing to notice 
many of the points at all. The fact is, our brethren who 
have ability are ashamed of his effort. 

M. You must excuse the good editor. He was in a great 
strait. So many of the brethren had written to him about 
how much harm "Grub-ax" was doing to the cause of 
Campbellism, he felt that something must be done, so I 
suppose he did the best he could under all the circumstances. 
Let us " pass his imperfections by." 

C. Many of our brethren have preached and written a 
great deal against " Grub-ax" — they all say it is a very poor 
thing. Now, if they really think so, why do n't they bush 
about it? 

M. It is much easier to "grin" at an argument sometimes 
than it is to answer it; and some of your brethren seem to 
have learned that. But we will present all who have made 
"hard speeches" about " Grub-ax" and its author with oui 
kindest regards, and allow them to " say on." 

C. Now, before we part I will say, 1 wish to study the 
points you have made a few days, and if you have any thing 
that will give me additional light I would like to have it, 
for my mind is so stirred up on this question I must come to 
gome conclusion. I cannot rest in this unsettled state of 
mind. 

M. I have a synopsis of all we have talked about> with 
some additional thoughts. Take it, and study the points 
well, and give me your conclusion. Please do not come 
to the subject with 6 6 one eye closed" but open both eyes, 



A Tkeatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 161 

and look into the matter in the light of Scripture and 
reason. 

C. I trust I am done with prejudice. We have boasted 
bo much through our Church papers when we succeeded in 
proselyting a member from some of the sects, as we have al- 
ways called them, that I have become heartily ashamed, and 
am determined never to be guilty of such unchristian con- 
duct again. I will see you soon, and give you my 

CONCLUSION. 

M. Good-morning, Brother C. It has been six days 
since we parted; I hope you aie ready to give me your con- 
clusion. 

C. Yes, sir. I have gone over all the ground carefully ; 
and assisted by the manuscript you gave me, I think I got 
all the points fixed in my mind. I will give them to you 
as I got them up. You showed by many texts of Scripture 
(1) that John the Baptist baptized with water, not in wa- 
ter; (2) that John, Jesus, and Peter all say he baptized 
with water; (3) that it is quite strange that Campbellites 
say in always means immerse when connected with baptism ; 
(4) that they admit in does not mean immerse when not con- 
nected with baptism ; (5) that water baptism and Holy Ghost 
baptism are often mentioned in the same verse, and Holy 
Ghost baptism is always administered by pouring; (0) that 
if pouring the Holy Ghost upon the "inward man" is Holy 
Ghost baptism, pouring water upon the "outward man" 
must be water baptism; (7) that no man was ever dipped 
into the Holy Ghost, therefore if nothing is baptism but im- 
mersion, no man was ever baptized with the Holy Ghost; 
(8) that Saul was certainly baptized in the house of Judas 
landing on his feet; (9) that we Campbellites boast of being 
the only people who take the Bible alone as our guide, yet 
we have to suppose & great many things to make immersior 
11 



162 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



the Bible mode of baptism; (10) that baptism has no refer- 
ence to a burial; (11) that there is no similarity between 
Christ's burial and immersion in water; (12) that Romans 
vi. 4 and Colossians ii. 11, 12 have no reference to the mode 
of baptism; (13) that fleshly circumcision was only a sign 
or picture of a work of grace in the heart ; (14) that true 
circumcision is "of the heart, in the spirit;" (15) thax wa- 
ter baptism is only a picture of Holy Ghost baptism; (16) 
that Holy Ghost baptism is the true baptism; (17) that the 
"shedding forth" of the Holy Ghost upon the "inward 
man" cleanses him from all sin; (18) that in the regener- 
ation of the soul, the Spirit of God comes in contact with 
it as sensibly as water comes in contact with clothes when 
they are washed; (19) that water baptism is not a condition 
of justification; (20) that Christ is the only Mediator be- 
tween God and men; (21) that if a sinner cannot be justi- 
fied without immersion, water is a mediator between God 
and him; (22) that the administrator of immersion is also 
a mediator; (23) that the Campbellite theory puts three 
mediators between God and man, viz.: water, the man 
who does the dipping, and Christ; (24) that if tne Ca*np- 
bellite doctrine is true, water and some one to immerse the 
sinner are as essential to salvation as Christ is ; (25) that when 
Campbellites say, " Believe and repent," they reverse the 
Bible order; (26) that no man can be saved on the faith 
which merely assents to the truth; (27) that faith which 
commits all to God is justifying faith; (28) that justifying 
faith always comes after repentance; (29) that we are justi- 
fied from past sins by faith only ; (30) that after justifica- 
tion., good works meet God's approval, hence Christians are 
said to be justified by works; (31) that Noah was saved by 
faith, and not by water ; (32) that the gift of the Holy Ghost 
is in no way dependent on water baptism ; (33) that at the 
house of Cornelius, Peter preached the same condition of 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 163 

justification that was preached by all the prophets ; (34) that 
Peter did not mention water to the Gentiles until after they 
had received "remission of sins" through faith in the name 
of Jesus; (35) that Campbellites talk foolishly about the 
word only; (36) that in all cases of healing the sick, cleans- 
ing lepers, or forgiving sins, performed by Jesus while on 
earth, he did it all " according to faith," and not according 
to immersion ; (37) that Jesus often said to the saved, " Thy 
faith hath saved thee," but he never said, " Thy immersion 
hath saved thee." There are many other points I will not 
mention, but must refer to the many forcible illustrations 
which set your points in such a clear light that I consider 
your arguments unanswerable. I also saw a note in the 
manuscript which brought to mind your closing remarks in 
your last speech on the proposition " Immersion is the fourth 
condition of pardon," in a discussion with one of our elders. 
M. Can you repeat the remarks? 

C. I think I can. You spoke of a young man who re- 
ceived a mortal wound in battle. A Campbellite minister 
went to him, when the following dialogue began: Soldier. 
" Brother, I am dying, without hope. What must I do to 
be saved?" Minister. "You must believe, repent, confess, 
and be immersed" S. "There is no water here, and my 
life is so far gone that it is impossible for me to be carried 
to water before I die. Can't I be saved without water?" 
M. " There is no promise for you without immersion." S. 
" My good mother gave me a Testament when I joined the 
army, and I remember reading in Matthew vii. 7, 8, 'Ask, 
end it shall be given you ; . . . . every one that asketh re- 
seiveth,' and I am willing to ask with all my heart, and in 
the name of Jesus, for pardon — can't I get it?" M. "No! 
without water you must be lost." S. "I read in John iii. 
16, 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only -be- 
gotten Son. thai whosoever believeth in him should not per- 



164 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



ish, but have everlasting life.' I am willing to believe in 
him with all my soul. May I not have life?" M. "No! 
no! There is no salvation without water." S. " The jailer 
asked Paul the same question I asked you — £ What must I 
do to be saved?' — and Paul said, ' Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' May I not be saved 
in the same way? " M. "No! Water! or you are lost forev- 
er!" S. "Peter said, ' To him give all the prophets wit- 
ness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him 
shall receive remission of sins.' O may I not have remis- 
sion of sins on the same terms that Christ, Peter, Paul — all 
the apostles, and all the prophets — offered it to the whole 
world?" M. "Water! water!! water!!! Eternal damna- 
tion without water." You then said: "My friends, do you 
believe that God's plan of salvation is so human, so gross, 
that your salvation is suspended on an arm of flesh, or hid 
away in the bottom of some creek or pond? T know you 
do not. I declare to you, when certain men get up to 
preach, it is as if the fountains of the great deep' were 
broken up, and the water spouting, gushing, and lashing in 
every direction until your very head swims, and you feel as 
though you were thrown from a ship in mid-ocean during a 
tierce storm. It seems they think Jesus is on an island, 
and all who want salvation must dive to him. Jesus 
says, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John xiv. 6), 
but they say, " Water is the way to Christ ; water is the way 
to pardon — water ! water ! ! 

' Every mother, son, and daughter, 
Here's the gospel in the water; 
O ye blinded generation, 
Won't you have this cheap salvation 

Now, I confess I was not in a good humor with you just 
then, but I see things in a different light now. O Lord 
open mine eyes that I may see the truth clearly ! 



A Tkeatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 165 

M. Amen. " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of 
God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not" 
(James i. 5). " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmi- 
ties; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, 
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan- 
ings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii. 26). The Lord 
grant you his Spirit! 

C. I noticed one other point in the manuscript which ] 
will repeat. "The Pharisees attached great importance to 
circumcision and all the ordinances of the law of Moses. 
In fact, in their extreme zeal for ordinances, they omitted 
the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and 
faith" (Matt, xxiii. 23). They thanked God they were 
not like other men — they were the Church, better than 
others, but Jesus calls them "hypocrites," "fools and 
blind," making "clean the outside," but neglecting "that 
which is within." He bid them " cleanse first that which 
is within" — that they were like unto whited sepulchers," 
"beautiful without," but "within, full of dead men's bones 
and all uncleannes^ ; " that "outwardly" they "appear 
righteous unto men, but within are full of hypocrisy and 
iniquity" (Matt, xxiii. 1-28). Pharisees thought them- 
selves so pure and holy that in their sight even Jesus had 
the "devil in him" — they were ready to sit in judgment on 
the case of any man, or set of men, who did not believe 
just as they believed, and do just as they did. Surely he 
was a great sinner, but they were God's people— unmistak- 
ably right, while all others were undoubtedly wrong, and on 
their way to ruin. So I have observed that those in our 
day who raise such a "hue and cry" about water! water!! 
water!!! and have but little to say about the Holy Ghost, 
except to ridicule the idea of such a thing as Holy Ghost 
baptism nowadays — saying that direct influence of the Spirit 
upon the heart ceased with the apostolic age — I say I hav? 



166 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



noticed that they stress immersion as much as the Pharisees 
did circumcision, or more, crying in almost every sermon, 
"Water! water!! 

'The only way to make men flee 
The wrath to come, and set them free 
From sin and sorrow, death and slaughter, 
Is to plunge them in the water.' " 

Paul says, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the 
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the burden of his 
preaching was "Jesus Christ and him crucified;" but our 
Campbellite friends generally have five times as much to 
say about water as they say about Christ and the cross 
both. They seem to have read Paul's language about thus, 
"God forbid that I should glory save in water baptism, 
and that by immersion." Now, the Campbellites do not 
like you for your plainness of speech, but I have noticed 
carefully, and you have not done them any injustice. I 
confess that for years I have been worried with this con- 
stant cry for water! water!! I am done with it forever. 
I believe justification from past sins is by faith only — that 
the Holy Spirit comes in direct contact with the soul in re- 
generation — that at any time a sinner may " believe in the 
Lord Jesus Christ," and be "born of the Spirit;" and 
though all Campbellism should be arrayed against me, 
henceforth I intend to " look into the perfect law of liberty, 
and continue therein." Would like to talk to you some 
time on the work of the Holy Spirit. 

M. I will be pleased to talk with you on that subject at 
another time. The work of the Holy Spirit is a subject of 
great interest to me, and when we enter upon that we shall 
need more time than we can spare now, as we have been 
long talking, and need a little rest. For the present we 
will part; but I hope we shall meet again soon. Mean- 
while, my friend, let us not forget to pray that God mav 



A Treatise on the Mode of Baptism, etc. 167 



give us both wisdom to understand his will and grace to 
do it. 

C. Amen. Rememoer me also in your devotions. I have 
a neighbor who says he would like to see you and talk with 
you. He thinks he could give you some light on the Script- 
ures — says he wants to show you (1) how to rightly di- 
vide the word of truth ; (2) that the Acts is the only book 
in the Bible which tells a sinner what to do to be saved ; 
(3) that Holy Ghost baptism belonged to the apostolic 
age alone; (4) that your book of Discipline is all wrong 
— that you should not have such a book ; and many other 
things which I will not mention. 

M. Will be pleased to meet him. Have you any thing 
else to say before we part? 

C. Only this: I wish to read another extract from the 
manuscript you gave me. I read it because it impressed me 
much, and I hope you will have it published. It reads as 
follows : 

" What gives the Campbellite Church such influence over 
a certain class of restless, bustling people? Is it because 
her members lead quiet and peaceable lives, and show more 
of the 1 fruits of the Spirit ' in their daily walks than do the 
members of other Churches ? No ! Is it because her min- 
isters are more deeply pious than the ministers of othei 
Churches? No! Is it because they teach purer Bible doc- 
trine than other Churches? No! The Protestant Churches 
of this land can compare the lives of their members and 
ministers, and the purity of their doctrine, with those of the 
Campbellite Church, and lose nothing by the comparison, 1 
am sure. But whence cometh her influence? It comes 
from a false boast, She lifts up her voice and cries aloud: 
{ We are the people who take the Bible alone ! We will 
have no book but the Bible. We want no books of man's 
oiake; God's book is good enough for us. Come hithe>, aU 



168 The Ecclesiastical Pump. 

the world, and join us on the Bible.' This is her boast, but 
what are the facts? They are these: She is busy, very 
busy, circulating her ' Old Path Guide,' ' Gospel Preacher,' 
* Gospel Advocate,' ' Gospel Plan of Salvation,' and a host 
of other papers, books, pamphlets, tracts, and cards, crying 
all the while, 'The Bible alone! we will have nothing but the 
Bible!' consistency! When a boy, I remember to have 
seen a rule in some of the old arithmetics called the ' Rule 
of Supposition.' I must say that the gospel of the Camp- 
bellite Church, as proclaimed by her ministers, and pub- 
lished in her books and periodicals, is largely a 1 Gospel 
of Supposition.' 1. They agree that infants of eight days 
old were taken into covenant relation with God under the 
old dispensation, but they suppose it should not be so under 
the new. They agree that God was pleased with those who 
observed his law in regard to the relation of infants to his 
covenant then, but they suppose he is angry with those who 
take their children into covenant relation with him now. 
They agree that the light of God's covenant was bright 
enough then to shine unto little babes, but they sup>pose it 
is faded and dim now, so that not one ray reaches the sweet 
innocent babe. They agree that it is written in Acts ii. 39, 
( For the promise is unto you, and your children,' but they 
suppose your children are to have none of its benefits until 
they are able to choose for themselves. They agree that 
you would be very wicked and cruel were you to neglect 
the temporal comforts of your babes because they are in- 
capable of choosing what is best for them, but they suppose 
you are vile and wicked if you give them the benefits of 
God's covenant without their consent. They agree that we 
have a Bible account of three household baptisms, but they 
mppose there were no children in any of these households ; 
or, if there were children, they were of sufficient age to 
i*>koose for themselves — they seem to be a little at a loss here 



A Treatise ox the Mode of Baptism, etc. 169 



to know which supposition is correct. 2. Again : In order 
to demonstrate the fact (?) that immersion is the Bible mode 
of baptism, at Pentecost they suppose that the twelve apos- 
tles dipped three thousand persons in a very few hours 
(Acts ii. 41). They suppose that Ananias took Saul from 
the house of Judas to some convenient water — they do n't 
seem to be certain as to where the water was found — and 
there dipped him (Acts ix. 18). They suppose that Peter 
took Cornelius, and his kinsmen and near friends, to some 
stream or pool (not mentioned in the Bible account, Acts 
x. 44-48), and dipped them all. They suppose that Paul 
and Silas took the Philippian jailer, and all his — the 
children, if any, being of proper age to make their owl 
choice — at the hour of or soon after midnight, to some con- 
venient pool or stream — they do not seem to be certain 
which — and immersed them (Acts xvi. 30-33). They sup- 
pose the six hundred thousand men, besides children (Ex. 
xii. 37) — they hardly know about the children, as they take 
that as typical of Christian baptism — were immersed in the 
sea, though the account says they went on dry land (Ex. 
xv. 19). They suppose that John Baptist immersed those 
who came to him from Jerusalem and Judea, and the vast 
multitudes who came from 'all the region round about 
Jordan,' though John says he - baptized them ' with wa- 
ter.' 3. Once more: They agree that Jesus said of the 
Holy Ghost (John xvi. 8, 9), ' When he is come he will re 
prove the world of sin, . . because they believe not on me, 
but they sup>pose that it is folly to expect the Holy Ghost 
to reprove a sinner by dht^t contact with his spirit. They 
agree that it is written of the true followers of Jesus (2 Cor. 
iii. 3), 'Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of 
Christ ministered by us, written not with L:k, but with the 
Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but ir 
fleshly tables of the heart;' but they suppose the Spirii 



170 



The Ecclesiastical Pump. 



does this writing in the heart somehow, without direct con- 
tact with the heart." 

But why pursue these suppositions farther? I just wish 
to say that so far as I can see, you are correct about the 
Campbellite gospel being largely a gospel of supposition. 

M. True enough; but let us turn on the light, and try 
to induce them to keep in a good humor with us, while we 
try, by the help of God, to show unto them a more excel- 
lent way — the Bible way. Let us take heed that we love 
truth, and esteem him a true friend who will expose our er- 
rors. " Faithful are the w T ounds of a friend ; but the kisses 
of an enemy are deceitful." (Prov. xxvii. 6). 



THE SPRINKLER. 



No Dip in the Bible, but Sprinkle, Pour. 

(171) 



THE SPRINKLER. 



" So shall he sprinkle many nations." (Isaiah Hi. 15.) " Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) " For 
when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according 
to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, 
and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all 
the people." (Heb. ix. 19.) That all of the above texts refer to 
the mode of baptism is clear to my mind, and as our Campbell- 
ite friends have founded their immersion on mpposition and not 
on Scripture, it is hoped that this little Sprinkler will set aside 
the unscriptural dip and establish in the mind of the reader the 
true Bible mode of baptism — sprinkle. Carefully read and in- 
wardly digest the contents of the Sprinkler, and if you derive any 
benefit therefrom, the author will be amply repaid for the labor 
bestowed on this little messenger. 

(173) 



INTRODUCTION. 



That pouring or sprinkling water upon the subjects in every 
case of baptism recorded in the Bible would have been exactly 
convenient without adding to or taking from the Bible account 
one word, syllable, or letter will hardly be denied. That in the ma- 
jority of baptisms recorded in the word of God immersion would 
have been altogether inconvenient, and in some cases impossible, 
unless we suppose something which the Bible does not say, will 
not likely be denied except by immersionists. That sprinkle and 
pour are used in the Bible in reference to baptism few honest 
Bible readers will deny. That immerse or dip is ever used in the 
Bible with reference to baptism no one can prove. " Give us 
chapter and verse for sprinkle and pour having reference to bap- 
tism," you say. " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you" 
(Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) Was not this prophecy fulfilled in the baptism 
of the three thousand at Pentecost as shown in this pamphlet ? 
If not, tell us when and where it was fulfilled. " I will pour out 
my spirit upon all flesh," (Joel ii. 28; Acts ii. 17.) Was not this 
spoken in reference to the mode of Holy Ghost baptism? If not, 
to what did it refer ? Reader, " inquire within," and I think you 
will find clear Bible proof that sprinkle, pour, is the scriptural 
mode of baptism, and that the best that can be done to prove 
immersion must be done by supposition, and not by Scripture. 

The Author. 

(174) 



CHAPTEE V. 



The Sprinkler. 



Campbell ite. Brother Methodist, I am glad to meet 
you, and I hope we can spend an hour profitably talk- 
ing on the mode of baptism. I have many things 
to say to you on that subject. 

Methodist. Yes, sir; if you say much to me, I sup- 
pose you will have something to say about baptism, 
for that is what you Campbellites generally talk 
about; but say on, I will hear you. 

Campbellite. Well, sir, what I want to say to you is 
this: It seems so strange to me that you Methodists 
should oppose us so strongly on the mode of baptism, 
when we do and teach on this subject just as Christ, 
John the Baptist, the apostles, and the early Christians 
did and taught. We baptize just as John baptized 
Christ, and just as the apostles baptized. We observe 
every item connected with the baptisms recorded in 
the New Testament, just as they were observed by John, 
Jesus, and the apostles. Now why do you oppose us? 

Methodist. We oppose you because you are in one 
respect like the Pharisees: " you say, and do not." I 
know that you proclaim to the world that you baptize 
just as Jesus was baptized and just as the apostles 
baptized, observing every point connected with bap- 
tism just as they occurred in connection with the New 
Testament baptisms, but you do not. 

Campbellite. Will you please show me any thing con- 
nected with Christ's baptism that we do not observe? 

(175) 



176 



The Sprinkler. 



Methodist, I will. Let me number the items where- 
in Campbellite baptisms differ from Christ's baptism. 
(1) "Then cometh Jesus . . . unto John, to be 
baptized of him." (Matt. iii. 13.) Do Campbellite 
preachers w r ait for people to come to them to be bap- 
tized? 

Campbellite. No, b-u-t — ■ 

Methodist. Hold a moment! Don't you run after 
them, even after members of other Churches, and urge 
them to let you baptize them? 

Campbellite. I don't wish to answer that question. 

Methodist. (2) "But John forbade him." (Verse 
14.) Did you ever know a Campbellite preacher to 
forbid any one who came to be baptized of him?" 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. (3) Jesus came to John without faith, for 
he "knew all things." Do you baptize people who 
have no faith? 

Campbellite. Of course not. 

Methodist. (4) Christ came to John without repent- 
ance, for he "knew ho sin." Do you baptize impeni- 
tent persons? 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. (5) Jesus made no confession, for he had 
no sins to confess. Do you baptize people who make 
no confession? 

Campbellite. Of course not. 

Methodist. (6) Christ was perfectly pure; no sin, no 
guile, no condemnation was upon him. Do you not 
publish to the world that you would not for your right 
arm baptize a pure, holy person who had never sinned? 

Campbellite. Certainly we do. 

Methodist. (7) When Jesus was baptized " Lo, the 



The Sprinkler. 



177 



heavens were opened unto him." ( Verse 16.) Did 
you ever know such a thing to occur at a Campbellite 
baptism ? 

Campbellite. You know that was a miracle, and why 
do you talk such foolishness? 

Methodist You may call it foolishness if you please, 
but you have boasted so loud and so long about doing 
just like Christ and his apostles did that I have made 
up my mind to show the world just how far you miss 
it. Xow for the eighth point: "And he saw the Spirit 
of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon 
him." (Terse 16.) Any thing like that at your 
baptisms? 

Campbellite. Xo, sir. 

Methodist. (9) "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, 
This is my beloved Son. in whom I am well pleased." 
( Yerse 17. ) Did you ever hear a voice from heaven 
at a Campbellite baptism? 

Campbellite. Xo, sir ; that was in the days of mira- 
cles,, and I think it is foolish for you to ask such 
questions. 

Methodist. But did it ever occur to you that the 
baptism of Jesus and all the baptisms recorded in 
the New Testament occurred in the days of miracles 
— yea, and e&ery word of the Old, and New Testaments 
was written in the days of miracles ; but you Campbell- 
ites have a very convenient arrangement. You pro- 
claim to the world, " Come, behold a people who 
preach the old apostolic gospel, a people who do and 
teach just as Jesus and his apostles taught and did, 
Come, join us and be like the early Christians; " and 
when Ave begin to show you many points of difference 
you cry out, " Foolishness! foolishness! days of mir- 
12 



178 



The Speinkler. 



acles! days of miracles!" But let me call your at- 
tention to the tenth point: "AndJesus himself began 
to be about thirty years of age." (Luke iii. 23.) Do 
you require your subjects for baptism to wait till they 
are about thirty years of age before you baptize them? 

Campbellite. No, sir; we baptize them as soon as 
they commit sin, and believe, repent, confess, regardless 
of age. 

Methodist. And yet you do just like Christ did (?). 
Now I have shown you ten points of difference be- 
tween the baptism of Christ and Campbellite baptism; 
will you please show me one point of agreement? 

Campbellite. O yes! "And Jesus, when he was bap- 
tized, went up straightway out of the water'' (Matt. iii. 
16. ) This shows beyond a doubt that Jesus w T as im- 
mersed, and that is just like. we do; we always im- 
merse because Jesus was immersed. 

Methodist. That is, you suppose he was immersed ; 
the Bible does not say he was. But the ten points of 
disagreement amount to nothing if you can find one 
point of agreement, and that point based on supposi- 
tion ! Do you think that John baptized Jesus by the 
same mode by which he baptized all the people? 

Campbellite. Of course he did; John immersed all 
he baptized, for nothing is baptism but immersion. 

Methodist. Then we will see if we can learn from 
the Bible just how John did baptize. Moses said: 
" The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet 
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, lite unto 
me; unto him ye shall hearken." (Deut. xviii. 15.) 
Also, in verse 18, God said: "I will raise them up a 
Prophet from among their brethren, like unto th.ee." 
Now do you think this prophet was to be like unto 



The Sprinkler. 



179 



Moses in personal appearance, or was he to preach the 
law and administer the ordinances of the Church after 
the manner of Moses? 

Campbellite. Of course it would be of bo importance 
that he should be like unto Moses in personal appear- 
ance. No one would contend for that, I suppose. 

Methodist. The Jews were on the watch for "that 
prophet " who would preach and administer the ordi- 
nances of the Church as Moses did, and when John 
the Baptist began his public ministry he attracted the 
attention of the scribes and Pharisees, because he did 
so much like Moses they thought he must be " that 
prophet; " so they " sent priests and Levites from Je- 
rusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" (John i. 19.) 
"And they asked him, Art thou Elias? And he 
saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he 
answered, No." (Verse 21.) "And they asked him, 
and said unto him, Why baptizeth thou then, if 
thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet? " 
(Yerse 25.) Here it is plain that the point of simi- 
larity between John's work and the work of Moses was 
his baptism, for the priests and Levites were particu- 
larly impressed with this point of similarity, hence 
they asked: "Why baptizest thou then?" 

Campbellite. Just so; but what does that prove in 
regard to the mode of baptism practiced by John? 

Methodist. Just this: Paul tells just how Moses bap- 
tized. Turn to Hebrews ix. 19: " For when Moses had 
spoken every precept to all the people according to 
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with 
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and speinkled 
both the book AND ALL THE PEOPLE." This 
settles the question as to the mode of baptism prac- 



180 



The Sprinkler. 



ticed by Moses. He sprinkled all the people, 
thus baptizing them with water; so when John came 
baptizing with water, for John answered them, saying, 
"I baptize with water" (John i. 26), his baptism 
so exactly agreed with Moses sprinkling all the people 
that it is easy to see why the priests and Levites took 
him for that prophet who should be like unto Moses. 
And when we consider that Moses and John lived un- 
der the same dispensation, that Moses sprinkled all the 
people, and that John baptized with water, it is clear 
that he did not immerse Jesus, but sprinkled the 
water upon him like Moses sprinkled all the people. 

CanipbelUte. I fail to see your point, for when Moses 
spoke of that prophet who was to be like unto him 
he did not have reference to John the Baptist, but to 
Christ. 

Methodist. That does not affect the question, for 
John and Jesus surely baptized by the same mode, 
for " Jesus made and baptized more disciples than 
John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- 
ciples.)" (John iv. 1, 2. ) That is, the disciples bap- 
tized under the immediate supervision of Jesus, and of 
course by the same mode by which Moses and John 
baptized — that is, sprinkled ivater upon all the people — 
and this shows us that the apostles did not immerse. 

Campbellite. I do not exactly see your point, but 
you have shown ten points of difference between 
Christ's baptism and our baptism ; is there any other 
difference? 

Methodist. Yes, sir, in the design of baptism; you 
teach that water baptism is for (in order to) the re- 
mission of sins. Jesus was not baptized for the re- 
mission of sins, was he? 



The Sprinkler. 



181 



Campbellite. No, sir; and to tell you the truth, it 
has never been very clear to my mind what he was 
baptized for. 

Methodist That is an honest confession, and now 
you see I have shown you eleven points of difference 
between Christ's baptism and Campbellite baptism, 
and you have only tried to show one point of agree- 
ment, and that was based upon a supposition, and I 
have shown you by " thus saith the Lord " that your 
supposition is wrong; that Jesus tvas not immersed; 
that John and the apostles did not immerse. 

Campbellite. "We will leave the baptism of Jesus, 
if you please; but I am sure, if we turn to the second 
chapter of Acts, we will find that the three thousand 
were immersed on the day of Pentecost. 

Methodist. Very well; we will see how many points 
of agreement we can find between the baptism at 
Pentecost and Campbellite baptism. (1) " The num- 
ber of the names together were about a hundred 
and twenty." (Acts i. 15.) Do you have just a hun- 
dred and twenty disciples together preparatory to 
baptism ? 

Campbellite. O no! that is not essential. 

Methodist. Is it not common for you Campbellites 
to cry publicly: "The Methodists are always talking 
about things in the Bible that are non-essential to sal- 
vation. We know no non-essentials in God's word; 
every thing in the Bible is essential, or God would not 
have put it there;" and here you say is something 
"not essential." But we will notice the second point: 
" They were all with one accord in one place.'" (Acts ii. 
1.) Are you Campbellites all of one accord? are you 
in love and harmony among yourselves? 



182 



The Sprinkler. 



Campbellite. Not exactly; we have considerable dif- 
ference of opinion about organs in churches, mission- 
ary societies, etc., and bad feelings often arise, and 
even split the Church in some places. 

Methodist That is bad indeed; but (3) "And sud- 
denly there came a sound from heaven." (Verse 2.) 
Do you hear a sound from heaven preparatory to bap- 
tism? 

Campbellite. Of course not; that was a miracle. 

Methodist (4) That sound w T as " as of a rushing 
mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting." (Verse 2.) The like of that never 
occurs in an assembly of Campbellite elders just 
before they baptize the people, does it? 

Campbellite, No, sir. 

Methodist. (5) "And there appeared unto them clo- 
ven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
them." (Verse 3.) Any thing like that ever occur 
with Campbellite elders? 

Campbellite. Certainly not; that was a miracle. 

Methodist. (6) "xAud they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost." (Verse 4.) Are you filled with the 
Holy Ghost before baptizing people? 

Campbellite. O no; that was another miracle. 

Methodist (7) "And began to speak with other 
tongues." (Verse 4.) Do your elders speak with 
other tongues? 

Campbellite. No, sir; of course not. 

Methodist. (8) They began to speak, not what they 
had learned, but "as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
(Verse 4.) Does the Spirit every?// your elders and 
give them utterance? 

Campbellite. That was in the days of miracles. 



The Sprinkler. 



183 



Methodist. (9) Such was the joy and speech of the 
disciples that some supposed them to be " full of 
new wine." (Verse 13.) Do your elders ever get 
enough of the Holy Ghost in them to cause them to 
act as the apostles did on this occasion? 

Campbellite. Well, we are getting so now that some 
of our more excitable members shout a little occasion- 
ally, but we regard that as more the result of excite- 
ment than a result of the Holy Ghost in them. 

Methodist. (10) In Peter's sermon at Pentecost, 
before he said one word about baptism, the people were 
"pricked in their heart" and said: " Men and brethren, 
what shall we do? " (Verse 37.) Did you ever see 
just such an occurrence under a Campbellite sermon? 

Campbellite. I cannot say that I ever did. 

Methodist. (11) When Peter told them to " be bap- 
tized for the remission of sins," he added, "and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Verse 
38.) Do your elders always promise the "gift of the 
Holy Ghost" to those whom they baptize? 

Campbellite. No, sir; and really I do not know that 
we are very well settled in our minds as to just what 
the gift of the Holy Ghost is. Most of us think it 
was confined to the apostolic age, or days of miracles. 

Methodist. Now, we have seen eleven points of dif- 
ference between things connected with the baptism 
of the three thousand at Pentecost and Campbellite 
baptisms, and many of thess points you utterly refuse 
to claim now, and there is not one of those points 
which you hold as essential to a scriptural baptism 
now; yet you continue to tell the people: " We do in 
all things just as Christ and his apostles did. The 
Bible is our creed: we go by it to the letter." Now 



184 



The Sprinkler. 



please tell me just what was connected with the bap- 
tism of the three thousand at Pentecost that exactly 
agrees with Campbellite baptism. 

Campbellite. Why, the three thousand were im- 
mersed, and we practice immersion. That's the point 
of agreement. 

Methodist, Then you think nothing connected with 
the Pentecost baptisms is essential now bat the mode. 

Campbellite. Well, we know they were immersed, and 
we immerse. 

Methodist. But let me show you how much yon are 
mistaken about that. Let us read a prophecy which 
is recorded in Ezekiel xxxvi. 24-27. This prophecy 
was made to the Jews. God said to them: "For I 
will take you from among the heathen, and gather you 
out of all countries, and will bring you into your own 
land. (Verse 24. ) Now, what teas the Jews' own land? 
and when -was this prophecy fulfilled? 

Campbellite. The land of Judea was the J ews' own 
land, but I do not know when this prophecy was ful- 
filled. 

Methodist. Let us see if we cannot find its fulfill- 
ment in the second chapter of Acts, where it is plain- 
ly stated that "there were dwelling at Jerusalem 
Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.''' 
(Acts ii. 5.) The land of Judea was the Jews' own 
land, you say, and to this all agree. Now, here is the 
fulfillment of that prophecy — the Jews were to be 
taken out of all lands and brought into their own land. 
Now here they are on the day of Pentecost, " out of 
every nation under heaven " — in their own land. Does 
not this look like the fulfillment of that prophecy? 

Campbellite. I must confess that it does. 



The Sprinkler. 



185 



Methodist. Then let us take the next verse in the 
prophecy: " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean." (Verse 25.) Remember, this 
clean water was to be sprinkled upon them when they 
came into their own land. Now let us turn to Acts ii. 
41, and see the fulfillment of this point in the proph- 
ecy: " Then they that gladly received his word were 
baptized." "Sprinkled clean wafer " — " were baptized'' 
That looks like the fulfillment of that prophecy, does 
it not? 

Ca mpbell if e. AV-e-1-1, it may look so to you, but it is 
not so plain to me. Are there any other points in the 
prophecy that were fulfilled at Pentecost? 

Methodist Yes, sir. In verse 26 of the prophecy 
we read, "And a new spirit will I put within you;" 
and in Acts ii. 1 we read, "And they were all filled 
with the Holy Ghost." Also, in verse 38, Peter said to 
all who would be baptized: "And ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost." Again in the prophecy 
(verse 27) we read, "And ye shall keep my judgments, 
and do them; " and in the fulfillment (Acts ii. 42 ) we 
read, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and 
in prayers." Now, I have given you the four impor- 
tant points in the prophecy, and their fulfillment at 
Pentecost, and it is clearly shown that the three thou- 
sand were not dipped into tlie water, but clean water 
was sprinkled upon them. Is not that plain enough ? 
Were the three thousand immersed? 

Campbellite. Somehow I can't now think of the 
chapter and verse by which we prove they were im- 
mersed, but can you tell me why it is so definitely 
stated that clean water should be sprinkled upon them? 



186 



The Sprinkler, 



Methodist. The shedding forth of clean water upon 
those who are baptized is a picture of the shedding 
forth of the Holy Ghost upon those who are cleansed 
from sin by the " washing of regeneration, and renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abun- 
dantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." ( Tit. iii. 5, 
6. ) Now as the baptismal water is a type or picture of 
the Holy Ghost, it must be clean ivater, so you see the 
exceeding unfitness of dipping a person into muddy 
water for baptism. 

Campbellite. I believe I am willing to dismiss this 
case now, if you please. 

Methodist. Of course, then, you agree that the cir- 
cumstances connected with the baptism of the three 
thousand at Pentecost do not agree with Campbellite 
baptisms. 

Campbellite. I am not prepared to say just what I 
believe about that now, but if it suits you we will take 
up the baptism of the Samaritans, recorded in the 
eighth chapter of Acts. I am very sure they were 
immersed. 

Methodist. We have seen that Jesus was not im- 
mersed, and that the three thousand at Pentecost were 
not immersed, and at your request we will notice the 
baptism of the Samaritans. Now if we stick to the 
written tvord, you will see that there is but one way 
for you to get immersion out of this case, and that is 
you will just suppose the Samaritans were immersed, 
for the record does not even intimate that they were. 
We will notice the points connected with the case in 
order, and see how many of them will suit Campbell- 
ite baptism. (1) When Philip preached in Samaria 
"unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of 



The Sprinkler. 



187 



many that were possessed with them." (Acts viii. 7. ) 
Did you ever know a thing of that kind to precede a 
Campbellite baptism ? 

Campbellite. No, sir; that was a miracle. 

Methodist (2) "And many taken with palsies . . . 
were healed." ( Verse 7. ) Does that suit Campbell- 
ism? 

Campbellite. No. 

Methodist. (3) "And many . . . that were lame 
were healed." ( Verse 7. ) 

Campbellite. All that was in the days of miracles. 

Methodist. (4) When Simon was baptized " he con- 
tinued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the mir- 
acles and signs which were done." (Verse 13.) Does 
that suit Campbellite baptism? 

Campbellite. No; we would ridicule such a thing. 

Methodist. (5) After the people had been baptized 
the apostles at Jerusalem " sent unto them Peter and 
John." (Verse 14.) Do you Campbellites acknowl- 
edge the right of any body of ministers to send 
preachers where they choose to send them? 

Campbellite. No, sir; that is the Methodist way. 

Methodist. (6) When Peter and John reached Sama- 
ria they " prayed for them, that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost." (Verse 15.) Do you send ministers to 
pray for those whom you have immersed, that they 
might receive the Holy Ghost? 

Campbellite. No; nonsense! 

Methodist. ( 7 ) " For as yet he was fallen upon 
none of them." (Verse 16.) Do you teach that it is 
necessary for the Holy Ghost to fall upon those whom 
you have baptized? 

Campbellite. No; sins are pardoned in the act of 



188 



The Sprinkler. 



immersion, and that is all there is of it; no miracles 
now. 

Methodist ( 8 ) " Then laid they their hands on them, 
and they received the Holy Ghost" ( Verse 17. ) Is this 
done to those whom you baptize, and do they receive 
the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands? 

CampbeUite. No; that was in the days of miracles. 

Methodist. But you must remember that you are 
always telling the world that you do and teach just as 
Jesus and his apostles did and taught; now, I have 
given you a few things which the Bible says were 
connected with the baptism of the Samaritans, and 
you will not have them; but you contend for what the 
Bible does not say. You claim that the Samaritans 
were immersed, and the Bible does not say any such 
thing. So you reject what the Bible does say, and 
contend earnestly for w r hat it does not say. Yea, you 
make immersion essential to salvation, and the Bible 
does not say one word about immersion. Come, brother, 
just open your eyes one moment, and see how incon- 
sistent you are, and quit being so cross with us Meth- 
odists because we cannot agree that you are right in 
contending for immersion when the Bible is perfectly 
silent — yea, silent as death about immersion. 

CampbeUite. Well, we will take the baptism of the 
eunuch, if you please, for I am sure he was immersed. 

Methodist Very well; we will look at a few things 
connected with the eunuch's baptism, and see how they 
accord with your way of baptizing. (1) "And the 
angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, 
and go toward the South, unto the way that goeth 
down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert." 
(Acts viii. 26.) Do angels ever speak to CampbeUite 



The Sprinkler. 



189 



preachers, telling tlieni where to go to baptize some 
one? 

Campbellite. Foolishness! foolishness! That was in 
the days of miracles. 

Methodist. God does not even call Campbellite 
preachers to preach, I believe. 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, no. 

Methodist. (2) When Philip came to where the 
eunuch was he found him reading the book of " Esaias 
the prophet." (Verse 28.) Now, if Philip had been 
a Campbellite preacher, would he not have told the 
eunuch that he never could learn what to do to be 
saved by reading that book; that he mast read the 
"Acts? " 

Campbellite. Of course sinners must read the Acts 
to learn what to do to be saved. Esaias belonged to 
the Jewish dispensation. 

Methodist. (3) " Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go 
near, and join thyself to this chariot." (Verse 29.) 
Does the Spirit ever speak to you? 

Campbellite. Never, only through the written word. 

Methodist. (4) " The eunuch said, See, here is water; 
what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Verse 36.) 
Do you wait for sinners to call for baptism'} 

Campbellite. No; I urge all sinners to be baptized 
for the remission of sins. 

Methodist. But the record does not show that Philip 
said one tvord to the eunuch about baptism till the eu- 
nuch called for it. But (5) there is not one word said 
about immersion in connection with the Scripture the 
eunuch was reading, but just seven verses from where 
he was reading, it is written: "So shall he sprinkle 
many nations." (Isa. lii. 15.) But you think the eu- 



190 



The Sprinkler. 



nuch was immersed. Well, the record says sprinkle, 
and you say immerse. How is that? You go by the 
Bible, you say. 

Campbellite. Why certainly the eunuch was im- 
mersed, for "they went down both into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him" 
(Acts viii. 38.) That settles the mode beyond a doubt. 
The eunuch certainly was immersed. Why did they go 
down into the water if not to immerse? 

Methodist. The book says "he baptized him" so this 
was what they went down into the water for, but by what 
mode? 

Campbellite. By immersion, of course; the record 
clearly shows this. 

Methodist. Then I will give you a similar statement, 
and get you to tell me just hoic. Benaiah slew the lion. 
He " went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit 
in time of snow." (2 Sam. xxiii. 20.) Now notice 
carefully these important points. 1. 66 He went down." 
2. "He slew a lion:' 3. " In the midst of a pit." 4. "In 
time of a snow" Now with these points before you, 
of course you can tell me just how Benaiah slew that 
lion. Did he strangle him, beat him with a club, stab 
him with a spear, or did he kill him in some other 
way? 

Campbellite. I am sure I cannot tell you hoiv he 
slew him, for the word does not say how; it only states 
where he slew him, and how could any one tell how he 
slew him if he goes by the record alone? 

Methodist. Just like you Campbellites tell that the 
eunuch was immersed: you just suppose he was, when 
the word comes just as near telling just how Benaiah 
slew that lion as it does telling that the eunuch was 



The Spmxkler. 



191 



immersed. All you could do toward telling how the 
lion was slain would be a mere guess, but suppose 
just seven verses from this account we should find this 
statement, " So shall he spear many lions," do you 
think any one would doubt that Benaiah slew that 
lion with a spear? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I suppose not. 

Methodist. Does it not occur to you as a little strange 
that you Campbellites can tell to a certainty that the 
eunuch was immersed, and when you read the account 
of Benaiah slaying the lion, in which it is just as 
plainly stated how he slew the lion as it is in the 
eighth of Acts that the eunuch was immersed, and you 
can tell exactly and without et eloubf, that the eunuch 
was immersed, but you cannot tell one filing about 
how that lion was slain? 

Campbellite. AYe will dismiss the eunuch's case, if 
you please. 

Methodist. Not yet. Let me give you the sixth 
point. After the eunuch was baptized "the Spirit 
of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw 
him no more." (Acts viii. 39.) Did you ever know 
such an occurrence in connection with a Campbellite 
baptism ? * 

Campbellite. Of course not. Why do you ask so 
many foolish questions? 

Methodist. You constantly urge sinners and mem- 
bers of other Churches to join you on the Bible, 
and I want to show the world just how much of the 
Bible you stand on, and that immersion, on which you 
are so firmly planted, is not in the Bible; so it turns out 
that you fight harder for what is not in the Bible than 
you do for some things which are in it But as you 



192 



The Sprinkler. 



seera to be tired of the eunuch's case, we will take up 
Saul's baptism if it suits you. 

Campbellite. Suppose Ave skip Saul's baptism, as 
that is rather difficult for us Campbellites to manage. 

Methodist no; you go by the Bible, and Saul's 
baptism is recorded in the Bible, so we will examine 
it. And (1) "As he journeyed, he came near Da- 
mascus: and suddenly there shined round about him 
a light from heaven." (Acts ix. 3.) Nothing of this 
kind ever precedes your baptisms, I believe. 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. (2) "And he fell to the earth." (Verse 
4.) Do your subjects for baptism fall on their faces 
preparatory to baptism? 

Campbellite. No; that w T ould look too much like a 
Methodist mourners' bench, and you know how we 
ridicule such as that. 

Methodist. (3) And he "heard a voice saying unto 
him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? " (Verse 
4.) Did you ever know such an occurrence in con- 
nection with a Campbellite baptism ? 

Ceimpbellite. No; that was a miracle. 

Methodist. (4) "And the Lord said, I am Jesus 
whom thou persecutest." (Verse 5.) God never 
speaks to your subjects, I believe. 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. (5) Saul said to the Lord: " Lord, what 
wilt thou have me to do." (Verse 6.) You don't 
teach your subjects to pray, I believe. 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we are softening a little on that 
point lately. 

Methodist. (6) "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, 
and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what 



The Sprinkler. 193 

thou must do." (Verse 6.) You teach that God 
does not hear and ansiver the prayer of an unimmersed 
sinner, do you not? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, yes. 

Methodist (7) "And the men which journeyed with 
him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no 
man." (Verse 7. ) How would that suit Campbellism V 

Campbellite. Not at all; that was in the days of mir- 
acles. 

Methodist. (8) "And he was three days without 
sight, and neither did eat nor drink." (Verse 9.) 
How would that suit you ? 

Campbellite. That does not suit us at all in the pres- 
ent day. 

Methodist. (9) "And there was a certain disciple at 
Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord 
in a vision. . . Arise, and go into the street which 
is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas 
for one called Saul, of Tarsus." (Verses 10, 11.) 
Does the Lord ever speak to you in a vision, telling 
you where to go and who to call for? 

Campbellite. No; that was a miracle. 

Methodist. (10) " For behold he prayeth" but as you 
are softening in regard to sinners praying, we will take 
the eleventh point. Saul had "seen in a vision a man 
named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on 
him, that he might receive his sight." (Verse 12.) 
Your subjects see no visions, I believe. 

Campbellite. No, sir; that was another miracle. 

Methodist. (12) Ananias feared to go, "but the 
Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen ves- 
sel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and 
kings, and the children of Israel." (Verse 15.) God 
13 



194 The Sprinkler. 

does not choose Campbellite preachers before tliey are 
immersed, I believe; and he does not call them to 
preach even after they are immersed, I believe. 

Campbellite. You know Ave do not believe in a di- 
vine call to the ministry: that is too much like the 
Methodists. 

Methodist. (13) When Ananias entered into the 
house where Saul was, he put his hands on him, and 
said: "Brother Said" (Verse 17.) Do you call un- 
immersed sinners brother? 

Campbellite. It is not our custom to call even the sects 
brother, but we are coming a little on that now; some 
of us call the sects brother, but I doubt its being right. 

Methodist. (14) Ananias said to Saul: "The Lord, 
even Jesus, . . . hath sent me, that thou mightest 
receive thy sight, and be filled with the holy 
ghost." (Verse 17.) Did you ever tell a penitent 
sinner that the Lord had sent you to him ? 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. Did you ever tell a sinner that God had 
sent you to him, "that he might be filled with the Holy 
Ghost?" 

Campbellite. No; that was in the days of miracles. 

Methodist. (15) "And immediately there fell from 
his eyes as it had been scales." (Verse 18.) You 
never saw any thing like that, did you? 

Campbellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. (16) "And he received sight forthwith, 
and arose, and ivas baptized." ( Verse 18. ) Campbell- 
ite subjects always lie down and are immersed, I be- 
lieve. 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1 o-f c-o-u-r-s-e w-e — 
Methodist. Come, my brother, did you ever know a 



The Sprinkler. 



195 



Campbellite preacher to baptize a person hi a 'private 
residence, standing on his feet, as Saul was baptized. 

Campbellite. To be honest I must answer: No, sir. 

Methodist. Now we have noticed sixteen points con- 
nected with Saul's baptism which you do not claim are 
connected with Campbellite baptism, but you claim 
that immersion must be connected with all Campbell- 
ite baptisms; and this you utterly fail to find connect- 
ed with Saul's baptism. Now does it not seem strange 
indeed that the points we have noticed, which the Bi- 
ble plainly states were connected with the baptism 
we have noticed, are points which you do not claim 
as essential to a scriptural baptism now, and that the 
immersion you do claim is not once named in connec- 
tion with baptism or any thing else, and yet you go by 
the Bible alone, and are the only people who do go by it. 

Campjbellite. I have always thought it would be hard 
to prove that Saul was immersed; it cannot be done 
if we just take the case as it reads, but there may be 
some things connected with his baptism that are not 
recorded. 

Methodist. Possibly so; and if so, it would be a mere 
guess as to what those things were, and my guess 
would be worth as much as yours, and neither of our 
guesses would be worth a bean. It is safe to say that 
every thing connected with Saul's baptism that is of 
any importance is recorded. 

Campbellite. "W-e-l-l, yes; I suppose so. 

Methodist. It is certain that none of the circum- 
stances recorded are favorable to immersion in Saul's 
case, but all the circumstances are favorable to pour- 
ing. 

Campbellite. "W-e-l-l, I think we have said enough 



196 



The Sprinkler, 



about Saul's case, and if it suits you we will notice the 
baptism of Cornelius and his friends. I think they 
were immersed. 

Methodist. You think so, but the word does not say 
so. Now I will state that there is not a case of bap- 
tism recorded in the Bible where it would have been 
inconvenient to administer it by pouring the tvater, 
and in every case the water could have been poured 
without adding to, or taking from, any of the facts re- 
corded in connection with the baptisms mentioned in 
the Bible, whereas, in a large majority of the bap- 
tisms recorded, to get immersion, many things must 
be taken for granted which are not recorded in the 
Bible. 

CamjpbeHite. Yes, I suppose you are right about 
that, but I think immersion was certainly the Bible 
mode. 

Methodist. You think, but we will now notice the 
baptism at the house of Cornelius in order, and (1) 
Cornelius was a man who " feared God," " gave much 
alms," " and prayed to God always" (Acts x. 2.) All 
this before he was baptized. Do you teach that God 
will answer the prayer of one who has not been bap- 
tized? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we are a little more cautious 
as to what we say about sinners praying than we used 
to be. 

Methodist. ( 2) In answer to his prayer, " he saw in 
a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day, an 
angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, 
Cornelius." (Verse 3.) You don't teach sinners to 
'pray, and expect visions before baptism, I believe. 

Campbellite. No, sir. 



The Sprinkler. 



197 



Methodist. (3) The angel said unto him: "Thy 
prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial 
before God." ( Verse 4. ) I believe you teach that an un- 
immersed sinner's prayers are not answered, do you not? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we are not quite so hard on 
that point as we used to be, but we never tell sinners 
to pray. 

Methodist. (4) Again the angel said: "And now 
send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose 
surname is Peter. . . . He shall tell thee what thou 
oughtest to do." (Verses 5, 6. ) What about all this? 

Campbellite. That was a miracle. 

Methodist. (5) Peter saw a vision which taught him 
that he must not call those for whom Jesus died, com- 
mon. (Verses 9-18.) Your preachers never see vis- 
ions, I believe. 

Campbellite. No; that was in the days of miracles. 

Methodist. (6) When the three men sent by Corne- 
lius came to the place where Peter was, i( the Spirit 
said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise 
therefore, . . . and go with them, doubting nothing: 
for I have sent them." (Verses 19, 20.) The Spirit 
never speaks to Campbellite preachers, telling them 
to go and preach, I believe. 

Campbellite. No; that was another miracle. 

Methodist. (7) When Peter reached the house of 
Cornelius, Cornelius said: "Four days ago I was fast- 
ing until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in 
my house" (Verse 30.) What do you think of an 
unbaptized alien (as you call unimmersed people) 
holding family prayers? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we never advise aliens to hold 
family prayers. 



198 



The Sprinkler. 



.Methodist. (8) When the angel of God (verse 3) 
came in to Cornelius, he said: " Cornelius, thij prayer 
is heard''' (Yerse 31.) Now do you not teach that 
all men are aliens until they are immersed, and that 
God will not hear the prayers of an alien? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we have softened a little in re- 
gard to the prayer of an alien, as I told you before. 
But you must remember that the angel said to Cor- 
nelius, send for Peter, and " he shall tell thee what thou 
oughtest to do." (Verse 6. ) Now that is our doctrine: 
we believe in doing religion. 

Methodist. But what about pardon and regeneration? 
Can a sinner do pardon of liis past sins? can he do re- 
generation? can he do the new birth born of the Spirit? 

Campbellite. Why pardon takes place in the mind 
of God. 

Methodist. But does the sinner do this pardon? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, of course not, but he does what 
God commands, and then God pardons his sins. 

Methodist. But where does the new birth take place? 
Is that something done in the sinner's heart, or in 
God's? Is it something a sinner can do? or is it some- 
thing God does in the sinner? 

Campjbellite. Ah, now you want to get off on some 
great miraculous something that nobody understands, 
and you Methodists are always talking about. 

Methodist. But you say the sinner does what God 
commands, and then God pardons him. Noav will 
you abide by what Peter gave at the house of Cor- 
nelius as the condition of pardon? 

Campjbellite. W-e-1-1 of course, I think a sinner 
must believe, repent, confess, and be immersed before he 
can be pardoned. 



The Sprinkler. 



199 



Methodist. (9) We will hear Peter. Now let us re- 
member that Peter said not one word about being im- 
mersed, in his sermon in the house of Cornelius, so far 
as the record shows; so all that you claim for im- 
mersion here must be claimed on supposition, just as 
you claim it in all other cases in the Bible. But as 
to the terms of "remission of sins" given by Peter at 
the house of Cornelius, we are not left to guess or 
suppose. Hear him: "To him [Jesus] give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever 
belie veth in him shall receive remission of sins." 
(Verse 43.) Now there is the only condition of par- 
don given by Peter on this occasion. Do you give 
sinners the same condition ? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we always have immersion as 
one of the conditions of pardon. 

Methodist. (10) Then you will not take just what 
Peter says, without adding something he did not say 
— immersion. But before Peter gave any command 
about baptism "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word." (Verse 4A.) Do you teach sinners 
to expect the Holy Ghost to fall upon them through 
faith in Jesus before they hare been immersed? 

Campbellite. No, sir; I clo not believe that the Holy 
Ghost falling upon sinners is essential to pardon; I 
think that ceased with the apostolic age. 

Methodist. Then you teach that the falling of the 
Holy Ghost upon the people at the house of Cor- 
nelius was not essential to the forgiveness of their sins, 
though the record plainly states that he did fall on 
all that heard the word. Bat you do teach that im- 
mersion is essential to pardon, though the record says 
not one word about immersion — that is, you teach that 



200 



The Sprinkler. 



the Bible states some things that took place at the 
house of Cornelius which are not essential to pardon, 
while it fails to state some things which are essential to 
pardon, and you are the only people in the world who go 

EXACTLY BY THE BIBLE ! Well, Well! 

Campbellite. But you are off the subject. We are 
discussing the mode of baptism; stick to the subject, 

Methodist. Very well. Now show me your proof 
for immersion in this case. 

Campbellite. Why "Caesarea, the home of Cornelius, 
was situated on the sea," and of course Cornelius 
and his friends were immersed. 

2Iethodist. (11) A fine argument (?). It proves 
immersion in this case about as clearly as the doctor 
proved that his patient had eaten a horse. He said 
there could be no doubt as to his having eaten a horse, 
for the bridle and saddle were under his bed ! But what 
saith the Scriptures? Peter says: " Can any man for- 
bid water, that these should not be baptized, which 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as ire?" (Terse 
47.) Do you take this for a command to go to the sea 
for immersion, or does the language convey the idea 
that the water was to be brought to the subjects? "Who 

C AX FORBID WATER?" 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I— if you please we will leave 
the case of Cornelius and his friends. 

Methfjdist. You will admit, then, that if we stick 
strictly to the word of God, we will not find immer, 
sion at the house of Cornelius. You only suppose im. 
mersion. 

Campjbellite. Of course I think they were immersed 
as they were so near the sea, but I must admit thai 
the language does not justify my conclusion. Let m 



The Sprinkler. 



201 



now look at the baptism of Lydia and her household. 
Now I am sure they were immersed, for St. Paul and 
his companions left the city of Philippi, and " went 
out by a river side." ( Acts xvi. 13.) Xow why did 
they "go out by a river side," unless it was to immerse? 

Methodist. Let us read more of that same verse, and 
see if it will not tell us just why they went out there. 
"And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a 
river side, where prayer was wont to be made" (Terse 
13.) Here we see the reason why they went out there 
- — it was the jjlet.ee where they were accustomed to pray. 
This is the reason given as to why they went there, 
but you say they went there so they could immerse. 
Well, as usual, the Bible gives one reason for their 
going out there, and you give another. Xow, if their 
object was to immerse, would it not have been just as 
easy, and much mare correct, to have said: "they went 
out by a river side where immersion was wont to be 
performed?" Honestly, now? 

Camphellite. TT-e-1-1, it may seem so to you. 

Methodist. Yes, it does seem very so to me; the fact 
is, it seems to me that if immersion is the Bible mode 
of baptism, it was a great oversight in the writers of 
the New Testament to fail to say so anywhere, while 
sprinkle, pour, shed forth, eome upon, fell upon, are all 
mentioned in connection with baptism. Just a ques- 
tion here: If Isaiah had said right in elose connection 
with the eunuch's baptism, " So shall he immerse many 
nations," don't you think you Campbellites would 
have thought one very stupid indeed who would have 
denied that the eunuch was immersed? 

Camphellite. I suppose we would, for we are inclined 
to think so of those who deny that he was immersed, 



202 



The Sprinkler, 



though Isaiah did say right in connection with where 
the eunuch was reading just before his baptism, " So 
shall he sprinkle many nations." (Isa. lii. 15.) 

Methodist. "Well, if God said in a prophecy which 
was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, " Then will I 
immerse you in clean water,'" you would have no 
patience with one who would say the three thousand 
at Pentecost were not immersed, would you? 

Campbellite. No, sir; for we have but little patience 
with such people any way, though God did say in a 
prophecy which seems to have been fulfilled at Pente- 
cost, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you" 
(Ezek. xxx vi. 25.) 

Methodist. We have been just a little off from Lyd- 
ia' s baptism. Now it turns out that the only evidence 
you have that Lydia and her household were im- 
mersed is based upon the fact that they "went out by 
a river side, where prayer was wont to be made" That 
is in keeping with what I have often said: "If immer- 
sion is proved at all it must be proved by circum- 
stances, and not by Scripture." As for me, I would 
be very slow to tell the world that immersion is the Bi- 
ble mode of baptism, when I had to prove it by cir- 
cumstances, the Bible failing to furnish the proof; and 
more especially if I believed as you do, that the sal- 
vation of the world depended on immersion. If the sal- 
vation of the world depends on immersion, as you 
Campbellites teach, what a great pity the writers of 
the New Testament did not give us some positive proof 
that immersion is the Bible mode of baptism, and not 
leave us to guess at it. Does it not look so to you? 

Campbellite. W-el-1, let us leave the baptism of 
Lydia, and take up the baptism of the Corinthians, 



The Sprinkler. 



203 



as recorded in Acts xviii. 8. Now " Corinth was sit- 
uated on the sea, and was famous for her two harbors," 
and of course the Corinthians were immersed. 

Methodist. I think you have made about as good an 
argument in favor of the immersion of the Corinthi- 
ans as you could make, and like all of your arguments 
in favor of immersion, it is based upon supposition, 
and not on Scripture. Now let me give you just 
what the Bible says about the baptism of the Corinth- 
ians. "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- 
gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and 
many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were 
baptized." (Acts xviii. 8. ). Xow don't you see that the 
Bible is silent as death in regard to immersion here, 
just as it is in every case of baptism recorded in the 
Bible? 

Campbellite. Of course I must admit that the Bible 
is silent on the subject, But Corinth, as I said, was 
situated on the sea, and it does seem that that is fa- 
vorable to immersion. But as we can't agree about 
this case, suppose we take the case of the twelve dis- 
ciples whose baptism is recorded in Acts xix e I 
reckon you will not deny that they were immersed. 

Methodist. We will read all that is said about it, 
and see if we can find immersion. "When they 
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus." (Terse 5.) What are your circum- 
stances to prove immersion here? 

Campbellite, Well, Paul " passed through the upper 
coasts" and came to Ephesus. ( Terse 1. ) So you see 
there must have been water there, or there could not 
have been coasts. Certainly this favors immersion. 
Now why did Paul pass through the upper cexists if it 



204 



The Sprinkler. 



was not to have water convenient to immerse any 
whom he might meet? 

Methodist. Yes, the exact reading is: "Paul having 
passed, through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and 
finding certain disciples," etc. (Verse 1.) So Paul 
found these disciples at Ephesus, and not on the coast 
as he was going to Ephesus; but that is about the 
best you can do toward proving immersion in this 
case. But Paul "laid his hands upon them," and 
"the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with 
tongues, and prophesied." (Verse 6.) Now you 
think immersion is absolutely essential to pardon, but 
what about the facts stated in this sixth verse? 

Campbellite. O that was a miracle, of course; but 
we can get at the mode of baptism, it seems, in a way 
that ought to be satisfactory to all people. Now if we 
go to the Greek lexicons, what will we find as the 
definition of the word which is called baptism in King 
James's version? 

Methodist I think we can find the definition of that 
word in the Bible, and if we can, you would prefer 
that, would you not? 

Campbellite. Certainly, but can you find it in the 
Bible? 

Methodist. Jesus says: "But ye shall receive power, 
after that the Holy Ghost is come "upon you." (Acts 
i. 8.) Here Jesus defines the word "Come upon" 
Joel, Peter, and God, define it thus: " In the last days, 
saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 
(Acts ii. 17. ) " Pour out " is God's, Joel's, and Peter's 
definition of baptize. Luke defines it thus: "The 
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." 
(Acts x. 44.) "Fell on." "Pie hath shed forth this 



The Sprinkler. 



205 



which ye now see and hear." Spoken of in the fut- 
ure, he was to be "poured out" "come upon." Spoken 
of in the past, he was "shed forth,''' "fell upon." 
Now here is the Divine definition o£ baptize; and why 
reject it, and get up a long list of circumstances to try 
to prove that God, Christ, Joel, Peter, and Luke, all 
gave the wrong definition? Does this Divine defini- 
tion of baptize suit you? 

Campbellite. O that was given in reference to Holy 
Ghost baptism; we are talking about " water baptism'' 

Methodist. Then the word baptize, when referring to 
Holy Ghost baptism, means pour out, and when refer- 
ring to water baptism it means immerse, does it? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I'll study that point some. I 
am not so well satisfied about that, but there are a 
few other cases of baptism mentioned in the Bible, 
which, I suppose, it would not do us much good to 
notice now, for I am getting tired of this matter. 

Methodist. I suppose you are. I noticed how you 
skipped the baptism of the jailer and his house; I 
suppose that is like Saul's baptism for you — rather 
hard to manage; but let us notice it a little. The cir- 
cumstances connected with the jailer's baptism are 
as follows: 1. A damsel possessed with a spirit of 
divination brought her masters much gain. 2. She 
cried after Paul and his companions. 3. Paul cast 
the evil spirit out of her in the name of Jesus Christ. 
4. This offended her masters because their hope of 
gains was gone. 5. Her masters caught Paul and 
Silas and brought them before the rulers. 6. The 
multitude rose up against them, and the magistrates 
commanded to beat them. 7. When they had laid 
many stripes on them, they cast them into prison, 



206 



The Sprinkler. 



charging the jailer to keep them safely. 8. The 
jailer thrust them into the inner prison. 9. At mid- 
night Paul and Silas prayed and sung praises unto 
God. 10. A great earthquake came shaking the foun- 
dation of the prison. 11. Immediately the prison 
doors were opened, and every one's bonds were loosed. 
12. The keeper of the prison was aroused from his 
sleep, and seeing the prison doors opened, supposed 
the prisoners had fled, took a sword, and was about to 
kill himself. 13. Paul said to him: " Do thyself no 
harm: for we are all here." 14. The jailer came 
trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas. 15. 
He brought them out of the inner prison. 16. He 
said: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 17. And 
they said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (I never heard 
a Campbellite answer that question that way.) 18. 
"And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and 
to all that were in his house." 19. "And lie took 
them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
way." 20. After the baptism he brought them into 
his house. (Acts xvi. 16-34) Now remember, the 
apostles were put into the prison by the author- 
ity of the magistrates; then they were thrust into 
the inner prison by the jailer. So here are two ins, and 
only one out The jailer brought them out of the inner 
prison where he had put them, into the outer prison 
where the authorities had put them, and there the 
baptism took place. Now where is your immersion? 

Camphellite. Well, you have ridiculed me so much 
about supposing, I believe I will just let that case 
stand as the Bible gives it. But I would like to talk 



The Sprinkler. 



207 



with you about the burial in baptism mentioned in 
Romans vi. 4 and Colossians ii. 12; but I remember 
that you considered those passages at some length in 
the "Pump." 

Methodist. I wish to make only one remark in con- 
nection with what I said in regard to the two texts 
you referred to, and that is, you Campbellites bury 
the wrong man when you immerse men; we bury dead 
folks, not live ones. Now if you will notice the sixth 
chapter of Romans, you will find: (1) A crucifixion. 
"Knowing this, that our old max is crucified with 
him." ( Yerse 6. ) (2) A death. " Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism info death" (Yerse 4.) 
The idea is: in Holy Ghost baptism the old man of sin 
is crucified, dead, and buried, but you Campbell- 
ites bury a live man in your immersion. 

Campbellite. "We will dismiss this case if you please; 
but I want to ask you one question: If immersion is 
not the Bible mode of baptism, why is it stated so 
many times in the New Testament that they went to 
water to be baptized? 

Methodist. I know that is the way you Campbellites 
talk about it, but you may be surprised when I tell 
you that the Xew Testament does not say one word 
about the multitude going to water to be baptized. 
Let us read Matthew iii. 5: "Then went out to him 
[John] Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan." (Mark i. 5. ) "And there went 
unto him [John] all the land of Judea," The people 
went unto John. If he baptized in Jordan, they went to 
him; if he baptized beyond Jordan (John x. 40), the 
people went to him; if he baptized in the wilderness, 
the people icent to him; if in Enon or in Bethabara, 



208 



The Sprinkler. 



the people went to him. So all that has been said 
about going to water for immersion amounts to nothing. 

Camphellite. W-e-1-1, I had not noticed that. And 
the fact is, I begin to see that there is some good 
scriptural argument in favor of sprinkling and pouring, 
as the Bible mode of baptism. But there is one other 
case of baptism mentioned in the Bible, sand it seems 
to me that it favors immersion: that is, the baptism 
of the Israelites as they crossed the Bed Sea. The 
water was a wall on each side, and the cloud was over 
them, so that formed a complete immersion. 

Methodist. By reference to Exodus xiv. 22 we find 
that the children of Israel "went into the midst of 
the sea upon the dry ground." In Nehemiah ix. 11 
we learn that they "went through the midst of the sea 
on the dry land" Is there any intimation that the Is- 
raelites were off their feet at any time while crossing 
the Bed Sea? 

Camphellite. No, sir. 

Methodist. Is it not plainly stated that they passed 
over on dry ground? 
Camphellite. Yes, sir. 

Methodist. Can you show me how the Israelites 
could be baptized on dry ground, on their feet, as the 
Campbellites immerse now. 

Camphellite. W-e-1-1, I suppose not. 

Methodist. Now St. Paul tells us in first Corinth- 
ians x. 2 that the Israelites were all baptized, and Da- 
vid tells us in Psalm lxxvii. 17 just how it was done: 
" The chads poured out tvater." To my mind this set- 
tles the matter. The mode of baptism was pouring. 
Now if you will agree to baptize me on dry ground, 
on my feet, and make it agree with Campbellite im- 



The Sprinkler. 



209 



mersion; or if you will agree to baptize me in a pri- 
vate house on my feet, as Saul was baptized, and make 
it agree with Campbellite immersion, I will allow 
you to baptize me just to learn how it can be done. 
What say you? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I believe I will not undertake 
it. The fact is, you made one remark since we have 
been talking on this subject which I have considered 
well, and it is strictly true. 

Methodist. To what remark do you refer? 

Campbellite. You said: " There is no case of baptism 
recorded in the Bible where you would have to go 
outside of the record, or suppose any thing that is 
not plainly stated in the Bible, in order to make it 
convenient to pour or sprinkle the water on the sub- 
ject; but in a large majority of the baptisms recorded 
you must go beyond what is written, and suppose some- 
thing which the Bible does not say, in order to make 
immersion even convenient, much less prove that im- 
mersion is the only Bible mode of baptism." I must 
say in all candor, that statement is true, and the 
more I think of it the more I am inclined to the 
opinion that we have been mistaken in stating so often 
that you Methodists had no Bible authority for 
sprinkling and pouring. Really I am surprised how 
much we must suppose in order to make every case of 
baptism mentioned in the Bible a case of immersion. 

Methodist. Then inasmuch as we have "sprinkle" 
"pour oat" u shed forth" "fell upon" "come upon" all 
connected with baptism in the Bible; and inasmuch 
as immersion, dip, plunge, or any thing of the kind, is 
not once named in the Bible in connection with bap- 
tism; and inasmuch as sprinkling or pouring would 
14 



210 



The Sprinkler. 



have been exactly convenient and easy in every case of 
baptism mentioned in the Bible without " adding to " 
or u taking from" the record one word, syllable, or let- 
ter; and inasmuch as in many cases of baptism re- 
corded in the Bible immersion would have been al- 
together inconvenient, and iii such cases as the baptism 
of Saul, and the jailer and all his, immersion would 
have been impossible if you take the record just as it 
stands — now in view of all these facts, don't you 
think we Methodists are safe in sprinkling or pouring 
water in baptism, seeing that we neither have to add 
to or take from the written word of God to get author- 
ity for so doing? 

Campbellite. I must confess, sir, that I am a little 
at sea on the mode of baptism just now, and will con- 
sider this matter more closely than I have done be- 
fore. 

Methodist. Well, don't you think it rather presump- 
tuous for you Campbellites to assume that immersion is 
the Bible mode of baptism, and then assume that 
there is no pardon of past sins without immersion, 
and then assume that all Methodists and all others 
who have not been immersed will be eternally lost? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, we are softening a little on that 
point now. Ton have noticed in the Gospel Advo- 
cate, I suppose, that we do not pretend to say what 
God may do in his uncovenanted mercy. He may save 
some who have not been immersed, but they have no 
promise of salvation short of immersion. 

Methodist. Yes, I have noticed that kind of talk in 
the Gospel Advocate, but do not remember to have 
seen any thing in the Bible about the' uncovenanted 
mercy of God. What does the Bible say about that? 



The Sprinkler. 



211 



Campbellite. I-I — w-e-1-1 — I don't remember that it 
says any thing, but we — 

Methodist Hold a moment; you Campbellites have 
more to say about things the Bible does not say than 
any people I ever saw who claim to go just exactly by 
t/te Bible in every tinny. How far you do miss it in 
many things, and immersion is one of those things! 

Campbellite. I have been thinking of the points you 
made since we began to talk. 1. You showed that 
there are eleven points of difference between Campbell- 
ite immersion and Christ's baptism. 2. That John 
sprinkled the water on Jesus. 3. That none of the 
things we Campbellites demand of a sinner before 
baptism were demanded of Jesus before his baptism. 
4. That there are eleven points of difference between 
Campbellite immersion and the baptism of the three 
thousand at Pentecost. 5. The baptism of the three 
thousand at Pentecost was the fulfillment of a proph- 
ecy which said: " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) 6. That there are eight 
points of difference between the things connected 
witji the baptism of the Samaritans and Campbell- 
ite immersion. 7. That immersion, the thing for 
w T hich we so earnestly contend, is not once named in 
the Bible. 8. That many things which the Bible 
states occurred in connection with New Testament 
baptism are rejected by us. 9. That there are six 
points' connected with the eunuch's baptism which 
are not connected with Campbellite immersion. 10. 
That there are sixteen points connected with Saul's 
baptism which are not connected with Campbellite 
immersion. 11. That nothing connected with the 
baptism of Cornelius and his friends indicates immer- 



212 



The Sprinkler. 



sion. 12. That if Lyclia and her household were im- 
mersed, the Bible fails to say so. 13. That the Co- 
rinthians were not immersed so far as the record 
shows. 14. That there is not the slightest intima- 
tion that the twelve whom Paul baptized were im- 
mersed. 15. That the Bible definition of baptize is 
"pour out" etc. 16. That it would take a long 
stretch of supposition to get immersion in the jailer's 
case. 17. That the Israelites were not immersed in 
crossing the Red Sea, but the cloud poured out water. 
18. And that if immersion is proved to be the Bible 
mode of baptism, it must be proved by supposition, 
as the Bible is silent as death about immersion. 

Methodist. One other question: If immersion is es- 
sential to salvation, and immersion is proved to be the 
Bible mode of baptism by supposition, then does it not 
follow that man's salvation is based on a supposi- 
tion ? 

Campbellite. It does seem so; and I am resolved to 
stop my part of this constant howling about immersion, 
immersion; which has been sounding on the hills and 
in the vales, and along the shores of all the streams 
in this land, ever since the days of Alexander Camp- 
bell. 

Methodist. Good, my brother. Let your motto be 
"More of the Holy Spirit, and less of the water." 

CampbelUte. I will do so by the help of God. I am 
glad we met, and had this friendly conversation, and 
with best wishes for your spiritual welfare I bid you 
farewell. 



THE FURNACE. 

The Dross Taken out of False Teaching. 

(213) 



PREFACE. 



l< The fining-pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold ; but the 
Lord trieth the hearts." (Prov. xvii. 3.) Silver and gold, in their 
natural state, are corrupted in all parts with dross, and a heated fin- 
ing-pot and furnace are required in order to purify them. Our race 
by nature is defiled with sin in every part, so " the Lord, whose fire 
is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem" (Isa. xxxi. 9), consumes 
the sins of penitent ones as " the lead is consumed of the fire " ( Jer. 
vi. 29). Thus are we made pure as gold that is u tried in the fire" 
(Rev. iii. 18.) When Israel had all the form of godliness, but had 
loat the power, the Lord said : " Son of man, the house of Israel is 
to me become dross; all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, 
in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver." 
(ilzek. xxii. 18). So much of the doctrine of Campbellism is made 
up of iron, brass, tin, lead, wood, hay, stubble, and watery and so lit- 
tle pure silver and gold is to be found in it, I have deemed it in or- 
der to construct a small furnace for the purpose of testing some of 
the doctrines taught by the disciples of Mr. Campbell. If this little 
work proves helpful to the end for which it was made, I shall ascribe 
all the glory to Him who has been with me in the work. 

John H. Nichoils. 

Bethel, Giles County, Term., April 27, 1885, 

(215) 



INTRODUCTION. 



This pamphlet is devoted to 

1. The depravity of our race. 

2. The soul: its five senses. 

3. The direct influence of the Holy Spirit. 

4. The Divine call to the ministry. 

5. Why the Methodists have a creed. 

6. Eightly dividing the word of truth. 
And many other points. 

If those who read this little book receive from it any benefit or 
comfort, I shall be amply repaid for the labor bestowed, and I will 
give praise unto Him from whose word I have culled the truths-- 
herein contained, and whose Spirit has comforted and guided me in 
the work. The Author. 

(216) 



CHAPTEE VI. 
The Furnace. 



Campbellite. Good-morning, sir. Excuse me, please; is 
your name Nichols? 

Methodist. That is my name, sir. 

Campbellite. Are you the author of "Grub-ax" ana 
"Pump?" 

Methodist. I am, sir. 

Campbellite. You are the very man I have been wishing 
to meet. I am what you are pleased to call a " Campbell- 
ite" preacher; and I wish to say I think you did a very bad 
thing for the cause of truth when you published those mis- 
erable pamphlets, and I think God will hold you account- 
able for the bad influence they are having upon both Chris- 
tians and sinners. Why, sir, one of my brethren, who had 
been reading the horrible errors contained in your pam- 
phlets, told me that he did not believe there was any king- 
dom set up by Peter at Pentecost ; that he did not see but 
that infant baptism was taught in the Bible ; that he be- 
lieved he took a cold-water bath unnecessarily when he was 
immersed; and a great deal more such nonsense. I under- 
stand, also, that in various places many members of the 
"Christian" Church are talking such foolishness, and some 
have even joined the "Methodists," and had their infants 
sprinkled. it is just awful to think of the great evil 
which is being done by your pamphlets! I think, sir, you 
ought to stop their publication ; and if you are a lover of 
truth, I think you wall stop it. 

Methodist. I am astonished at you, brother. Come, cool 
down a little. I thought vou Campbellites were great for 

(217) 



218 



The Furnace. 



discussion — always boasting that the "truth loses nothing 
by discussion." Why do you "go back" on your former 
boasts? How often have you cried: "'0 if the sects would 
just meet us in debate, how soon we would expose their 
errors to the world and establish the true Church on the 
ruins of the sects! " What is the matter, brother? 

Campbellite. I'll show you what is the matter before I 
am done with you. I want you to stand square to the 
Methodist doctrine, and I '11 show you where you have 
been dodging the most hateful doctrine of your Church. 
You know your Church teaches the "'total depravity" of 
the whole human race, and you have not dared to touch 
that doctrine in any one of your pamphlets. Now, sir. I 
am going to drag you out on this miserable doctrine; and I 
intend that you shall not— 

Methodist. Stop, brother L you are excited. Xow, if you 
will be quiet, and argue the question of 

TOTAL DEPRAVITY 

calmly, I am very willing to spend some time with you on 
that subject. Keep cool! 

Campbellite. I suppose I was excited some; but I will try 
and control myself better. Xow, I want you to come right 
to the question: " Do you believe that by the fall of Adam 
this whole race became totally depraved?" Eight out with 
it ; yes or no ! 

Methodist. Yes; in a sense I do. To illustrate: Take a 
wine-glass full of pure water and drop into it ten grains of 
strychnine. ]STow, in one sense this glass of water is totally 
poison. All parts of the water are affected by the poison, 
and in this sense it is totally poison. Y^ou believe that, do 
you not? 

CampbeViie. yes ; but I do not think your illustratioD 
proves the total depravity of Adam's posterity, 



The Furnace. 



219 



Methodist. I did not intend the illustration to prove any 
thing. I only intended to show you in what sense I believe 
Adam's race is totally depraved. I believe by his fall all 
parts of his being — soul and body — were corrupted, and 
that his offspring must necessarily be affected in all parts 
by sin ; so that, apart from the grace of God, man is not 
capable of turning and preparing himself, by his own nat- 
ural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God ; but 
he is "of his own nature inclined to evil, and that contin- 
ually." 

Campbellite. Ah! now I see your error. I believe that 
Adam was totally corrupted by the fall, in your sense of 
total depravity ; but I see that you believe Adam's posterity 
get their souls as well as their bodies from their parents. 
Here you are in error. The body of an infant comes from 
its parents ; but God creates its soul, and gives it to the babe 
some time about its birth. Isow, you do not believe that 
God would create a corrupt, depraved soul, and put it in an 
infant. Certainly you see your error here. 

Methodist I think we will do well to open our Bibles, 
and see if we cannot settle this matter by " Thus saith the 
Lord." I think we will find that God has not created a 
soul since he created the soul of Adam. Let us read Gen- 
esis ii. 2 : "And on the seventh day God ended his work 
which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day frorn 
all his work which he had made." Now, if we say God is 
still creating souls, we contradict this text directly, for it 
plainly says " God ended his work on the seventh day." 

Campbellite. That just means that God ended the work 
of creating all visible things. You must do better than 
that, or your doctrine must fall. 

Methodist. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth, the sea, and all that in them is." (Ex xx. 11.) Now, 
remember this was written more than two thousand years 



220 



The Furnace. 



after the creation, and it is plainly stated that in " six days 
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
them is " At the time this was written there were hun- 
dreds of thousands of souls in the world ; and will you say 
that God created them all about the time they were born ? 

Campbellite. I — well — I hardly know what to say; but 
you must remember Eve was created after the six days. 

Methodist. Let us see: "Male and female created he 
them ; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in 
the day when' they were created." (Gen. v. 2.) Notice: 
(1) "Male and female created he them;" (2) he "blessed 
them;" (3) he "called their name Adam, in the day 
when they were created." So we see Adam and Eve 
were created at the same time and called by the same name. 
"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, 
made he a woman." (Gen. ii. 22.) Here we learn that 
God made "the rib a woman," and there was no creation 
about it. Eve was bone of Adam's bones, and flesh of Ad- 
am's flesh. (Gen. ii. 23.) She was also spirit of his spirit, 
for she was part of him ; and to say that she had no soul until 
she was taken from Adam's side would be to say that part 
of Adam had a soul and part of him had not. So we see 
Eve was created in Adam, soul and body. Do you doubt it? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I hardly know. Can you give me 
a text from the New Testament which will show that the 
soul of an infant is from its parents? 

Methodist Jesus said to Nicodenuw : " Except a man be 
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Marvel 
not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John 
iii. 3, 7.) " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . . 
So is every one that is born of the Spirit." (Verses 6, 8.) 
Here we learn that the birth spoken of was a birth of the 
Spirit. The soul must be born of the Spirit of God, and 
this Jesus calls being " born again." Now, if the soul had 



The Furnace. 



221 



never been born before, how could this spiritual birth be 
being "born again?" 

Campbellite. I do n't exactly get the idea. How — 

Methodist. You don't? It seems perfectly clear that the 
soul was born of the mother, as was the body; and this 
constituted the offspring a child of earthly parents. Now, 
to become the child of a heavenly parent it must be " born 
again" — "born of the Spirit." 

Campbellite. I must confess I do not see any way to get 
around that; but I do not understand the matter. 

Methodist. Can a child be born without being in direct 
contact with its mother, and perceiving a great change when 
it comes into this world? 

Campbellite. Of course it cannot. 

Methodist. Then, can a soul be born of the Spirit without 
coming into direct contact with the Spirit and being con- 
scious of a great change? 

Campbellite. I do not see proper to answer that question 
just now. I am thinking of the soul being from the par- 
ents. Now, if that be so, Adam's offspring must be "totally 
depraved;" for "who can bring a clean thing out of an un- 
clean?" (Job xiv. 4.) But I cannot give in to the doc- 
trine of total depravity; for that would damn all infants, 
because they are not capable of complying with the terms 
of salvation. They cannot believe, repent, confess, and 
certainly they are not proper subjects for baptism. So 
they must be lost if they are totally depraved. 

Methodist. There need be no trouble here, brother. "For 
the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matt, 
xviii. 11.) "Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the right- 
eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justi- 
fication of life." (Rom. v. 18.) It is right if by the sin 
of Adam his whole posterity was corrupted, and infants are 



222 



The Furnace. 



brought into a state of corruption and condemnation with* 
out any act, will, or agency of their own — I say it is reason- 
able that Jesus in his death should provide for their " justifi- 
cation unto life" without any condition upon their part 
until they corue to know good and evil. Do you accept 
this? 

Campbellite. I think if the whole race is depraved, as you 
teach, the Bible ought to show it. You know that we " Camp- 
bellites" teach very differently, hence we do not believe in 
this wonderful spiritual change about which you Methodists 
talk so much ; but if you are correct in regard to depravity, 
you must be right about this great spiritual regeneration 
too. So I propose to settle this question of depravity by 
the Bible, here and now. 

Methodist " To the law and to the testimony." We will 
begin with the first specific account of man's moral state 
after the fall. "And God saw that the wickedness of man 
was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. vi. 
5.) Can you conceive of any thing more corrupt than the 
human heart is here stated to be? All his thoughts, and 
the very imagination of his thoughts, evil, and only evil con- 
tinually. Surely a heart not capable naturally of one pure 
imagination or one good thought must be totally depraved. 

Campbellite. You horrify me when you mention such 
doctrine, I think the text you have given has reference to 
those who had corrupted their nature by actual transgres- 
sions, and has no reference to the natural state of man. 

Methodist. You think so. Notice carefully: ''And God 
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth." 
Now, you think that general term "man" refers to a special 
class who had corrupted themselves by actual sins. Strange, 
indeed! But take another text: "And the Lord said, . . 
The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, v 



The Furnace. 



223 



(Tien, viii. 21.) Here is another general term — "man's 
h^art." Could a man in his senses persuade himself that 
'his general term only refers to a class of persons who be- 
gan to commit actual sins when they were quite young? 
Surely not. Again, David says: "Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Ps. 
li. 5.) " The wicked are estranged from the womb ; they go 
astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison 
is like the poison of a serpent." (Ps. lviii. 3.) Notice David 
says: (1) "I was shapen in iniquity;" (2) "conceived in 
sin." Now, hear Job : " Who can bring a clean thing out of 
an unclean? not one." (Job xiv. 4.) Yet you say David 
was pure and clean by nature! Once more: (1) "The 
wicked are estranged from the womb;" (2) "they go astray 
as soon as they are born, speaking lies;" (3) "their poison is 
like the poison of a serpent." Could all this be true if our 
race is pure by nature? Common sense answers, "JVb/" 
" Like the poison of a serpent ! " Do you think very young 
serpents are pure, and only become poison by biting people 
when they get larger? or do you think they are poison by 
nature? 

Campbellite. 0! of course they are poison by nature; 
b-u-t— 

Methodist But what? (1) The depravity of our race is 
like the poison of a serpent ; (2) the poison of a serpent is 
natural; (3) therefore the depravity of our race is not nat- 
ural. What logic! 

Campbellite. You do n't give me time to explain myself. 
1 cannot believe in natural depravity, because that would 
make it necessary for our whole moral nature to undergo a 
great spiritual change; and that would involve so much 
mystery my mind cannot take hold of the idea. 

Methodist. It may be hard for your mind to take hold of 
but certainly not harder than it is for you to take hold of 



224 



The Furnace. 



some scripture or argument by which } t ou can show that 
our race is pure by nature, Now, let me give you a few 
passages in which the divine writers speak of the depravity 
of our race as being perfectly natural. "What is man, that 
he should be clean ? and he which is born of a woman, that 
he should be righteous?" (Job xv. 14.) Notice the gen- 
eral term, "What is man?" From this text we learn that 
it is natural for our race to be filthy and unrighteous. Paul, 
speaking of his own natural state and that of others, says : 
"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times 
past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the 
flesh and of the mind ; and were by nature the children of 
wrath, even as others." (Eph. ii. 3.) "By nature the chil- 
dren of wrath." Gould any language make the depravity 
of our race " by nature" any plainer than this does ? " Even 
as others" — a general term referring to the whole race. So 
we see by nature Paul was on an equality with the wmole 
race. All were "children of wrath." Now, brother, if 
you are going to continue teaching the people that our race 
is pure by nature, you ought to show that the passages I 
have given in support of my doctrine have not been rightly 
construed. How about it? 

Campbellite. I will not undertake to explain the texts 
you have used, but I do not see how our race could be so 
corrupt by nature. It seems to me there must be some 
good, some soundness in us by nature, for \ starting-point 
at least. 

Methodist. " The whole head is sick, and the whole heart 
faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there 
is no soundness in it." (Isa. i. 5, 6.) But we have this 
consolation: "When we were yet without strength, in due 
time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom. v. 6.) "With- 
out strength " to " do good works, pleasing and acceptable to 
God." "Ungodly" — for such Christ died: and if he died 



Ihe Furnace. 



225 



for any but the ungodly, will you please tell me who they 
were, chapter and verse? 

Campbellite. O yes, yes! Christ died for the ungodly, 
and I do not remember any scripture just now that says he 
died for any but sinners. 

Methodist. Then, if Christ died for none but the ungodly 
— the depraved — and infants are not depraved but pure by 
nature, as you teach, it follows that Jesus did not die for 
infants ; and all agree that none will be saved except those 
for whonuChrist died — now what? 

Campbellite. I do n't exactly understand this matter, some- 
how. 

Methodist. Perhaps a few plain passages of Scripture 
would help your understanding: "The bread that I will 
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" 
(John vi. 51). "That He by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man''' (Heb. ii. 9). "He is the propitiation 
for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of 
the ivhole ivorld " (1 John ii. 2). " For we have before proved 
both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Eom. 
iii. 9). " The Scripture hath concluded all under sin" (Gal. 
ii. 22). Because "in Adam all die" (1 Cor. xv. 22). No- 
tice: (1) Jesus gave his flesh for the . life of the world; (2) he 
tasted death for every man; (3) he is the propitiation for the 
sins of the whole world; (4) for Paul proved that all arc 
wider sin; (5) and the Scripture hath concluded all under 
sin. From these passages does it not seem plain that all 
are under sin by nature ? 

Campbellite. But did not the death of Christ remove the 
depravity from our race which was brought upon it? I so 
understand it. 

Methodist. You do? Jesus says: "I am the light of the 
world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but 
shall have the light of life" (John viii. 12). "That was 
15 



226 



The Furnace. 



the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into 
the world" (John i. 9). "And this is the condemnation, 
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness 
rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John iii. 
19). jST ow suppose a man plunges himself into a deep, dark 
pit, and is bruised in every member of his body, surrounded 
by insurmountable difficulties, and some one goes to him 
with a light, removes the difficulties so as to make it possi- 
ble for him to escape the pit by the assistance of him who 
furnished the light, does that change the state of the man 
in the pit, or does it only make it possible for his state to 
be changed, whereas it was not possible before the light 
came and assistance was offered ? 

Campbellite. Of course that would only make it possible 
for his state to be changed. 

Methodist. Just so. Christ's death did not change the 
moral state of any, but made it possible for all to be saved 
by his grace. Notice the condition expressed above : " He 
that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have 
the light of life." 

Campbellite. I must confess I am getting tired of this 
subject. 

Methodist. As there is so much controversy on this sub- 
ject, you will allow me to give you a few more passages of 
Scripture : " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the 
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, 
for that all have sinned" (Eom. v. 12). Here we learn 
that infants have sinned, else they could not die. " Never- 
theless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans- 
gression" (verse 14). Adam sinned by a willful act of 
disobedience. This infants could not do. They are not 
charged with having so sinned, but they were made sinners 
by Adam's transgression — brought under condemnation by 



The Furnace. 



227 



Adam's sin; for " by one man's offense death reigned by 
one" (verse 17); "by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation " (verse 18) ; " by one man's 
disobedience many were made sinners" (verse 19). At the 
time Adam fell, he and Ike were the only human beings 
on earth; now, tell me who were the " all men" upon whom 
"death passed," "all men" upon whom "judgment came to 
condemnation," the "many that were made sinners," and the 
" all " that " have sinned " by "Adam's trangression " — if it 
was not Adam's unborn posterity, who were they? 

Campbellite. I — well, to be honest, I wish to dismiss this 
subject, and talk with you about the 

SOUL. 

Now, I think the soul of man is the breath of the Lord, 
for it is said the Lord breathed into man's nostrils the 
breath of life, and he became a living soul (Gen. ii. 7). 

Methodist Suppose we call a " crooked serpent " the 
hand of the Lord because it is written, " His hand hath 
formed the crooked serpent" (Job xxvi. 13). That would 
be about as sensible as to say the soul is the breath of the 
Lord because God created man's soul by blowing the breath 
of life into his nostrils. 

Campbellite. But is not the soul a part of God ? 

Methodist. Why not ask if the body of man is not a 
part of God ? There is just as much scripture for one as 
there is for the other. The prophet says, " The soul that 
sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. xviii. 4). Can any part of 
God sin or die f Nonsense ! A more important question 
is, What are the 

CAPACITIES OF THE SOUL? 

Campbellite. Ah! now you have come to the question of 
deepest interest to me. You Methodists talk about the soul 



228 



The Furnace. 



as if it could deal with God and spiritual matters as intelli* 
gently as we can deal with visible and tangible objects. 
Now, I do not believe in all this great feeling in religion 
that you talk about, and I want you to come out fully on 
this matter. 

Methodist. Suppose I ask you how you get a knowledge 
of color, shape, odor, sound, or any thing in nature — what 
would be your answer ? 

Campbellite. I would say, God has provided us with five 
senses, and by means of these senses we gain all the knowl- 
edge we have of things in nature ; but by these bodily senses 
I cannot see how we can commune with God directly, as you 
Methodists teach ; or, in other words, I cannot believe in 
the direct influence of God's Spirit upon our hearts. Do 
you really believe that w T e can smell, taste, handle, see, or 
hear God with any one or all of these bodily senses ? Re- 
member, " God is a Spirit." I am going to get straight after 
you now. Give me your answer. 

Methodist. Of course I do not believe we can get a cor- 
rect knowledge of God by the means of senses which are 
purely physical ; but you must remember man is a com- 
pound being— composed of matter and spirit — and if I un- 
derstand the matter, God has endowed the soul of man with 
the capacity to deal with spiritual matters as certainly as 
he has the body to deal with visible and tangible matter ; 
or, to be plain, I think it is clearly taught in the Bible, and 
it is just as reasonable that spirit can operate on spirit as it 
is that matter can operate on matter. 

Campbellite. Such an idea ! Now, you want to begin some 
great, mysterious something that no one can understand. 

Methodist. Do n't be frightened about mysteries. You 
are full of them yourself. You could not tell me all of the 
particulars connected with the raising of your hand to your 
head, or how thoughts get into your head, and run down 



The Furnace. 



229 



your arm, and off at the end of a pen, and spread them- 
selves on paper. No ; you cannot explain to perfection the 
growth of the smallest plant you ever saw; and, indeed, 
what is there in nature that you, or any other man, under- 
stands to perfection? Now, if you will not be scared lest 
you should see a mystery along the way, I will try and 
show you the medium through which God deals with the 
souls of men directly. 

Campbellite. I will hear you gladly. Now, stick to the 
Word. 

Methodist Very well. We will read 2 Corinthians iv. 
16: " Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man 
is renewed day by day." Here we notice two men — the 
" outward," or body, and the " inward," or soul. They are 
mysteriously connected together, and yet they are so dis- 
tinct that the " outward " may " perish " while the " in- 
ward" may be " renewed clay by day." The outward man 
is blessed with all the senses necessary to enable him to deal 
with temporal things, and the inward man is blessed with 
all the spiritual senses necessary to qualify him for dealing 
with eternal things — hence with the spiritual eye " we look 
not at the things which are seen [with the bodily eye], but 
at the things which are not seen; for the things which are 
seen [with the bodily eye] are temporal; but the things 
which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. iv. 18). Here, in 
the same chapter where the apostle speaks of the " inward " 
and the " outward " man, and just two verses below, he 
says, " We look at the things which are not seen " — " eternal 
things ; " and he says the " things which are seen are tem- 
poral." Now, if this does not mean that the physical man 
looks at temporal things and the spiritual man looks at spir- 
itual, eternal things, what does it mean ? 

Campbellite. I am not prepared to answer your question 
just now; but if the soul has five spiritual senses, answer 



/ 



230 The Furnace 

mg the same purpose in spiritual matters that the five bod- 
ily senses answer in temporal matters, I should like for you 
to show it from the Bible. 

SPIEITUAL SENSES. 

Methodist "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved 
lis, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sac- 
rifice to God for a sweet-smelliny savor" (Eph. v. 2). Now, 
you would not say that there is something connected with 
Christ's offering for us that we must smell with the bodily 
sense of smell, would you? 

Campbellite. no ; but do you think a spirit can smell ? 

Methodist. " God is a Spirit ; " and it is said in Genesis 
viii. 21: "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." In 
reference to Christ, Solomon says: "His lips like lilies., 
dropping sweet-smelling myrrh" (Song v. 13). But the 
sense of smell is one of the weakest senses, so we wiU not 
spend time here. 

Campbellite. Do you think the soul is capable of 
HEARING? 

Methodist. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if 
any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in 
to him, and will sup with him, and he with me " (Rev. iii. 
20). This is the language of Jesus, and do you think he 
stands and raps at the door of a sinner's house as you would 
knock at your neighbor's door for entrance, or does he stand 
at the entrance of the sinner's heart knocking for entrance 
into the soul, not to be heard by the bodily ear, but by the 
ear of the soul? 

Campbellite. Fudge! That passage only means that Christ 
through his ministers urges sinners to accept salvation on 
the terms of the gospel. " If any man hear my voice " — 
the warning of my ministers ; " and open the door " — ac 
cept and act upon their teaching, etc. Do n't you see how 
plain that is? 



The Fuknace. 



231 



Methodist So you think you have given the right con- 
struction of that passage. Suppose we apply your construc- 
tion to the last part of the verse : " If any man hear my 
voice, and open the door, I will come in and sup with him, 
and he with me" Now, according to your construction, that 
means : " If any man accepts salvation under the preaching 
of a minister, the minister must go and take supper with the 
new convert." Now, brother, honestly, do you believe that 
to be the true meaning of that passage ? 

Campbellite. I — w-e-1-1, I had not noticed that last part 
so closely as I should have done before making my comment. 

Methodist. I should think not. No, brothei ; you at- 
tempt to explain away all of the rich, glorious experience 
which is here promised to all who will give Jesus entrance 
to their souls. How sweet to be allowed to sup with Jesus, 
and have him sup with us! Those who open their hearts 
to Christ are just as conscious of his sweet presence in their 
hearts as you could be of the presence of your neighbor 
who knocks at the door of your dwelling, gains admittance, 
and sups socially with you at your table. Why do you 
strive so hard to explain away the very life and power of 
our holy religion? The "still small voice" of God (1 
Kings xix. 12) knocks at the door of the sinner's heart 
often, but many of them " resist the Holy Ghost " (Acts 
vii. 51) and continue in sin. Yes, surely God is able to 
speak to the soul of every man directly, and the soul is ca- 
pable of hearing his voice and heeding it. 

Campbellite. Well, I must confess I wish you could make 
me believe that theory ; for there would be much comfort 
in it if it were true. But what about the soul 

SEEING? 

Methodist. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends 
of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else" flsa. 
xlv. 22). Surely no one can think this passage mean.? thai 



232 



The Fuknace. 



we are to look with our bodily eyes, expecting to see God 
in a bodily shape before we can be saved. 

Campbellite. I suppose not; but it sounds very strange 
to me to hear one talking about a spirit having eyes, ears, 
etc., and being capable of seeing and hearing. 

Methodist That may be so ; but " God is a Spirit," and 
hear what David says of him : " He that planted the ear, 
shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not 
see?" (Ps. xciv. 9). " The eyes of the Lord are upon the 
righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry " (Ps. xxxiv. 
15). From these texts we see that it is doing no violence 
to the word of God to say a spirit has eyes and ears, and can 
see and hear. Now, do n't think of any part of the soul 
as being material, for it is wholly spiritual ; yet it has senses 
capacitating it to receive spiritual impressions the same as 
the body can receive material impressions through its phys- 
ical senses. 

CampbeUite. That is new doctrine to me; but has the 
soul the sense of 

TASTE ? 

Methodist " taste and see that the Lord is good " (Ps. 
xxxiv. 8). " If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gra- 
cious " (1 Pet, ii. 3). "And have tasted the good word of 
God, and the powers of the world to come'* (Heb. vi. 5). 
" Bless the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his bene- 
fits; . . . who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so 
that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's " (Ps. ciii. 2, 5). 
" Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and 
he that hath no money ; come ye, buy, and eat ; yea, come, 
buy wine and milk without money and without price. . . . 
Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, 
and let your soul delight itself in fatness" (Isa. lv. 1, 2). 
Here the soul is represented as having the sense of taste — 
able to " taste the good word of God, and the powers of the 



The Furnace. 



233 



world to come;" as having a "mouth" which God "satisfies 
with good things ; " capable of " tasting " and of " eating 
that which is good, and delighting itself in fatness." Now, 
could you believe for one moment that these precious pas- 
sages all refer to temporal blessings, to be received through 
the bodily senses? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I reckon not. 

Methodist " In the last day, that great day of the feast 
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him 
come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the 
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of 
living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they 
that believe on him should receive)" (John vii. 37-39). 
Now, can you doubt that in the passages quoted above the 
expressions " wine," " milk," and " water," all refer to the 
Spirit of God, which is given to .all who believe in Jesus 
Christ ? that the expressions " mouth," " eat," and " let your 
soul delight itself in fatness," refer to the capacity of the 
soul to take in the great spiritual blessings God has pre- 
pared for all who love him ? 

Campbellite. I must confess that I do not see how I can 
doubt your theory here. You have supported it strongly. 

Methodist Then, if the soul is capable of taking in these 
great spiritual blessings, and being "renewed," "satisfied," 
and " delighted," may we not be as conscious of having re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit into our " inward man " as we possibly 
could be of having received food into our "outward man?" 

Campbellite. You almost bewilder me. You know our 
theory in regard to feeling religion. Is it possible that I 
have been wrong about this matter all my life ? Plea se tell 
me, has the soul the capacity of 

FEELING ? 

Methodist. Certainly. " That they should seek the Lord 
if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though ht 



234 



The Furnace. 



be not far from every one of us " (Acts xvii. 27). If you 
will read the twenty-sixth verse you will see that the apos- 
tle was talking about " all nations of men/' and he says 
* " that they might feel after God, and find him." Does this 
mean that we are to feel after God with the bodily sense of 
touch, as we would feel in a dark room after any article we 
might wish to find ? 

Camphellite. O no, of course not; but I — 

Methodist Hold, and let me ask you a question. If you 
were feeling for an apple or an orange in the dark, and 
should find it, do you think you would be conscious of the 
fact, or would you call for a light to see whether you had 
really found it or not? 

Camphellite. I would know that I had found it; b-u-t — 

Methodist. Just one moment. Then, if a penitent soul 
is feeling after God, and finds him " precious," is that soul 
conscious of the fact? For "unto you therefore which be- 
lieve he is precious " (1 Pet. ii. 7). Could he be precious 
to one who was not conscious of having found him ? 

Camphellite. You are crowding me with too many ques- 
tions at one time. Of course — well, I — • 

Methodist. You what? Certainly a man who takes the 
Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as his guide in all relig- 
ious matters, as you profess to do, can endure a few quota- 
tions from that blessed book. Let me give you another: 
" Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after right- 
eousness, for they shall be filled" (Matt. v. 6). Do you 
think Jesus refers here to bodily hunger and thirst, or does 
he refer to that sense of the soul which enables it to " hun- 
ger and thirst after righteousness " as sensibly as the body 
hungers and thirsts after meat and drink ? 

Camphellite. Certainly you do n't mean to say — I — how 
does the capacity of the soul to hunger and thirst sho\* 
that it can feel? 



The Furnace. 



235 



Methodist. When your body loses all sense of touch, will 
it be capable of hungering and thirsting? Does not the 
ability to hunger and thirst prove beyond all doubt the sense 
of touch or feeling? 

OampbeUite. Yes. I — I suppose it does. 

Methodist. In a bodily sense, how does a man know that 
he is hungry or thirsty ? Is it by the length of time he has 
been without food or drink ; or what is his evidence of hun- 
ger and thirst? or does he really hiov: when he is hungry 
or thirsty ? 

OampbeUite. yes, he knows when he is hungry and 
thirsty ; and he knows it by a craving, or desire, for food or 
drink. 

Methodist. Very well. This craving, or desire, for food is 
wholly hi the feelings, is it not ? Then, how does the hun- 
gry man know when this craving is satisfied? Is it by the 
amount or quality of food taken, or how is it? 

OampbeUite. I must confess he knows it by his feelings. 

Methodist. Then, if a soul is hungering and thirsting after 
righteousness, and God fills that soul so that it " rejoices 
with joy unspeakable and full of glory " (1 Pet. i. 8), does 
it know this fact? and, if so, how? 

OampbeUite. It does really look like the soul must feel, 
but I do not understand it. 

MethodUt. Let us read Ephesians iv. 18, 19: " Having 
the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of 
God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the 
blindness of their heart; who being past feeling have given 
themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all un cleanness 
with greediness." Here the apostle speaks of a class who 
walked " in the vanity of their mind''' (verse 17), "having 
the understanding darkened." cursed with "blindness of 
their heart" and ready for any abominable work of un- 
rleanness, because they had so paralyzed their spiritual 



236 



The Furnace. 



senses by " alienating themselves from Ood by wicked works 9, 
they were " past feeling." Horrible, indeed, was their con- 
dition. Their moral state was about what the physical state 
of a man is when his body loses all feeling. There is then 
no life in him, nothing but decay and rottenness. So with 
the man who does not feel spiritually : he has none of the 
" life of God " in him, and is ready " to work all uncleanness 
with greediness." Surely you will not fall into line with 
some of your brethren, who are so fond of ridiculing the 
idea of feeling religion. So often you have heard them say : 
" Some people say they know they are Christians because 
they feel the love of God in their souls." Have you never 
heard talk like that from your pulpits by your preachers ? 

Campbellite. Yes, sir, very often ; and I have heard them 
challenge the audience to know if any one present felt re- 
ligion in their soul, and if so, what did it feel like, look like, 
smell like, taste like, or sound like. Then, they would claim, 
if these questions could not be answered, that there is no 
religion in feeling, then cry out, "Away with such wild-fire, 
fox-fire, phanticism ! " 

Methodist. Yes, that kind of talk is common among Camp- 
bellites. I heard it from a man in a store once. He was 
talking to a few men and boys. Finally he closed out by 
saving: " Gentlemen, feeling is no evidence of anv thing." 
A few days after this talk I met him near the same store 
where he did his talking, and asked after his health. He 
said : " I am not feeling well this morning. I suffered with 
toothache all of last night." I replied : "I doubt your state- 
ment." " Why ? " said he. I said : " It is likely you had 
no toothache. It may have been a little wild-fire or foxfire 
in your tooth. What did it smell like, taste like, sound like, 
look like, feel like ? How large was it ? What shape had it ? 
Can you tell me ? " He answered, " No." " Then," I said, 
" it is altogether uncertain about your having any toothache 



The Furnace. 



237 



la^t night or feeling badly this morning. On the contrary, 
you may be quite well." He saw the point, and said no 
more, Now, brother, from all that I have given you from 
the Bible, does it not appear that the " inward man " has 
five spiritual senses corresponding to the five senses of the 
" outward man,' 5 and that by the spiritual senses the inward 
man is as capable of dealing with, understanding, and en- 
joying spiritual matters as the outward man is of dealing 
with temporal things ? or, to be plainer, May not spirit act 
on spirit as well as matter act on matter? 

Campbellite. I must confess I am somewhat puzzled. So 
far as I can see, the texts you have quoted sustain your doc- 
trine; and if your doctrine is true, it seems that no one 
should be at a loss to understand the medium through 
which we gain a knowledge of spiritual things any more 
than they are to understand the medium through which Ave 
gain a knowledge of visible and tangible things. 

Methodist Does it not seem clear that, instead of the way 
to man's "inward man" being closed against God, it is an 
open, plain way, so that God can impress man's inward con- 
sciousness so sensibly that man will cry out, "I know that 
my Eedeemer liveth! " (Job xix. 25). Not only may we 
know that "he liveth,"' but "if any man will do his will, 
he shall Jcnoic of the doctrine" taught in his precious word 
( John vii. 17). But better still — Jesus says: "If a man 
love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love 
him, and we will come unto him. and make our abode 
with him" (John xiv. 23). "And hereby ice know that he 
abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us" (1 John 
iii. 24). How rich this blessed experience! How sweet to 
know that our Father makes his abode with us! And we 
"are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the 
Spirit of God dwell in us" (Rom. viii. 9). How sad for 
those who have not this glorious experience! for "if any 



238 



The Furnace. 



man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his*' 
(Rom. viii. 9). 

Campbellite. I suppose you think we Campbellites are 
not Christians because we deny the direct influence of the 
Spirit. 

Methodist. no. I think some of your members are 
good Christians, in spite of your wretched doctrine. Some 
of them do not stop with the simple assent to the truth that 
"Jesus Christ is the Son of God ; " they believe on him, trust 
in him, as their present, personal Saviour, and are "passed 
from death unto life" by the "washing of regeneration, 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus iii. 5). Your 
theory teaches men to know something about God, but rid- 
icules the idea of a man knowing God. 

Campbellite. I remember in your "Pump" you said 
something about the difference between believing that Jesus 
is the Son of God and believing in him; now you seem to 
intimate that there is a difference between knowing of, or 
about, God and knowing God. How is that? 

Methodist, Suppose, some dark, cold night, you should 
hear a faint voice on a hill near your house, and, going out, 
you find a child cold and hungry. You ask, "What is 
wanted? " The child replies : " I am weak from hunger, and 
/stiff with cold, and shall die if I do not get relief." You 
point to the light shining through the window of your resi- 
dence, and ask, "Do you see that light?" The child an- 
swers, "Yes." You say to him: "That is shining from the 
window of my house; there we have a warm fire, and plenty 
of rich food ; the roof will shelter you from the sleet, and 
the walls will shield you from the chilly winds, and I will 
help you to my house, and welcome you to all of these com- 
forts." But the child replies: "I believe with all my heart 
all you say, but I do not believe in heat coming in dived 
contact with the body, or in food coming in direct contact 



The Furnace. 



239 



with the stomach.' 5 So he does not go into your house, does 
not feel the heat of the fire, does not taste the food; still he 
believes every word you tell him with all his heart. Would 
not that child freeze and starve just as soon as if he did not 
believe one word you said? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1 — yes, of course he would. 

Methodist. Can you tell me of any bodily comfort which 
can be enjoyed without the thing producing that comfort 
coming in direct contact with the body by means of the 
bodily sense.-? 

Campbellite. I believe I cannot just now. 

Methodist. Xo more can there be any joy in religion, 
unless that joy is produced by the Holy Spirit coming in 
direct contact with the "inward man" by means of the 
spiritual senses. 

Campbellite. But what is the difference between knowing 
God and knowing of God? 

Methodist. What do you know of President Cleveland? 

Campbellite. I have read several of his speeches, seen his 
picture, and if the history I have read of him be true, I 
know that in the State of Xew York he has served as 
Sheriff, Mayor, and Governor, and that now he is President 
of the United States. 

Methodist. But do you know President Cleveland ? Did 
you ever see him, hear his voice, or shake his hand? 

Campbellite. Xo, sir; I never saw the President, and do 
not know him. I never came in direct contact with him iu 
any way, and of course I do not know him. 

Methodist Just so ; and one may read and believe all that 
is said about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost — yea, all 
that the Bible contains, and assent to every truth therein 
written — and yet not know God. To know God, we must, 
by faith, come "through our Lord Jesus Christ'' into the 
spiritual kingdom of God, where the love of God will be 



240 



The Furnace. 



" shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given 
unto us ?? (Rom. v. 1, 5). "And this is life eternal, that 
they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent" (John xvii. 3). 

Campbellite. Can you give me an example from the 
Bible of any who knew of God, but did not know him ? 

Methodist. The Jews had the "oracles of God" com- 
mitted to them, and they were very familiar with the works 
of God, and with the letter of his law. Yet Jesus says of 
them, "They have not known the Father, nor me" (John 
xvi. 3). 

Campbellite. I do not see how I can hold out against the 
doctrine of the direct contact of God's Spirit with ours any 
longer. It seems to me you have sustained your doctrine 
well, but I think you are wrong about what you call 

INSTANTANEOUS CONVEKSION. 
I cannot believe that a weeping mourner can be converted 
into a shouting Christian in one moment. 

Methodist. Why not God convert a soul as easily in one 
moment as in one day, or one month? God says: "Ye 
shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with 
all your heart" (Jer. xxix. 13). Notice carefully, "when 
ye shall search for me with all your heart " — that moment God 
is found, the soul is converted. This was spoken to sinners, 
for Christians have already found God, and the class here 
addressed were " praying unto God — searching after him " 
(verse 12). God's time to convert a sinner is now. "Be- 
hold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of 
salvation" (2 Cor. vi. 2). Is there ever a time with a sin- 
ner when he is neither converted nor unconverted? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1 — certainly not; but you know the 
four steps, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism — all 
of these steps must be taken before any soul can be con- 
verted. If either one of them be omitted, there can be no 



The Furnace. 



241 



pardon, no conversion, no salvation. Now, suppose you 
were four miles from home, could you possibly reach home 
without traveling each of the four miles? Could you leave 
out either one of the four and get home? 

Methodist. If I were four miles from home, I certainly 
would have to walk four miles before reaching home; but 
please remember, a penitent sinner is not four miles — not 
even four inches — from God. " The Lord is nigh unto them 
that are of a broken heart ; and saveth such as be of a con- 
trite spirit" (Ps. xxxiv. 18). "The Lord is nigh unto all 
them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth" 
(Ps. cxlv. 18). " For thus saith the high and lofty one that 
inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the 
high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and 
humble spirit > to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive 
the heart of the contrite ones''' (Isa. lvii. 15). Take all of 
these precious passages in connection with the " exceeding 
great and precious promise" of Jesus, "Blessed are they 
that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt. v. 4). 
What more could a poor penitent mourner ask? How does 
Campbellism construe these comforting texts? 

Campbellite. I hardly know. Please give me some ex- 
amples of instantaneous conversions from the Bible. 

Methodist Samuel said to Saul: "And the Spirit of the 
Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with 
them, and shalt be turned into another man" (1 Sam. x. 6). 
The ninth verse reads: "And it was so, that when he had 
turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another 
heart." Here is a case of instantaneous conversion, and it 
was done by the "Spirit of the Lord." Again, take the 
case of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius: "While 
Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all 
them which heard the word " (Acts x. 44). Here, quite a 
number were converted by the power of the Holy Ghost, in 
16 



242 



The Furnace. 



a moment, and they were so sensible of the great change 
they " spake with tongues and magnified God " (verse 46). 

Campbellite. And you think when a man is converted, 
or born of the Spirit, the change is so great that he is con- 
scious of the fact. Does that look reasonable? 

Methodist Take the case of Adam when he fell by un- 
belief, as recorded in Gen. iii. 6-11. With shame he tried 
to hide himself from the Lord, and said he was "afraid." 
Was he conscious that a change had taken place in his 
moral state? 

Campbellite. Of course, I suppose he was. 

Methodist. What book did he read to learn that a great 
change had taken place in him? How did he gain this 
knowledge ? 

Campbellite. Well, I see no way, only it must have been 
impressed upon his consciousness. 

Methodist. Then when a fallen sinner arises from the fall 
by faith in J esus Christ, and God's image is stamped on his 
"inward man" by the Holy Spirit, is it not altogether 
reasonable that the fact would be plain to him? 

Campbellite. I must confess that it looks so ; but can you 
give me an illustration that will throw any light on the 
subject? 

Methodist. Jesus speaks of this change as passing "from 
death unto life" (John v. 24). Now, imagine a dead man 
lying before weeping friends. He sees not their forms, 
hears not their sobs. All nature is silent and motionless to 
him. But in one moment he passes " from death unto life " 
— he feels, sees, hears, and has communion with his friends. 
Tell me, do you think such a change could take place and 
he not be conscious of the fact? Eemember, this is Jesus' 
illustration of the new birth. What do you think of it? 

Campbellite. He would undoubtedly know that a change 
had taken place. Can you give me another illustration? 



The Furnace. 



243 



Methodist " That ye should show forth the praise of him 
who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" 
(1 Pet. ii. 9). "Who hath delivered us from the power of 
darkness, and hath translated us unto the kingdom of his 
dear Son" (Col. i. 13). "Therefore if any man be in 
Christ, he is a new creature: old things &re passed away; be- 
hold, ALL THINGS ARE BECOME NEW " (2 Cor. V. 17). jSlOW, 

in a physical sense, if a man is suddenly taken out of dark- 
ness, into light — translated out of a kingdom of darkness into 
a kingdom of light, would he be conscious of the change? 

Campbellite. Certainly he would; he could not doubt it. 

Methodist. In the same sense, suppose old things all pass 
away, and every thing around a man suddenly becomes new, 
would he be conscious of the change? 

Campbellite. He would certainly know that a great change 
had taken place. 

Methodist. Then, is it not plain that if a man's spiritual 
nature undergoes the great change indicated by the pas- 
sages given above, he is bound to be conscious of the fact f 

Campbellite. I must confess that it does seem so. But 
what do you think about the soul, mind, aud spirit — are 
they all one? 

Methodist. What do you think about the head, hands, 
and feet — are they all one ? 

Campbellite. no ; but they are all different parts of the 
outward man. 

Methodist. Just so. The soul, mind, and spirit are not 
the same, but are different parts of the inward man. 

Campbellite. That is satisfactory. Now, I must say, you 
have given me the clearest insight to what you Methodists 
call Holy Ghost religion I ever had. Your idea in regard 
to the inward man is entirely new to me, though I do not 
see but that you have sustained your theory by the Bible. 
O if it is true that God's Spirit does come in direct contact 



2U 



The Furnace. 



with the heart of a sinner in his conviction and conversion^ 
and if that same great " Spirit itself beareth witness 
[directly] with our spirit that we are the children of God" 
(Eom. viii. 16), it is no wonder that you Methodists some- 
times shout. Would that I could feel that Spirit to-dav! 

Methodist. Amen! God grant you the *' spirit of adop- 
tion, whereby" you may "cry, Abba, Father"' (Rom. viii. 
15). But, that you may have no doubt as to our knowing 
that we have experienced a great change in conversion, I 
will give you another illustration: " He brought me up also 
out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set mv feet 
upon a rock, and established my goings. And he hath put 
a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God'' (Ps. 
xl 2, 3). Now, do you suppose David was actually mired 
down in a literal pit, and God lifted him out, and set his feet 
on a literal rock, or was David talking about his deliverance 
from the miry clay of sin? 

Camjjbellite. No doubt he was speaking of his deliver- 
ance from sin. 

Methodist. Hear him again: ''The sorrows of death 
compassed me, and the pains of hell grit hold upon me; I 
found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of 
the Lord: Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul" (Ps. cxvi. 
3, 4). Here we see that it was David's soul that needed 
deliverance, and this deliverance was obtained through 
faith — no ordinance, nothing required of him — he on]y cried 
unto God in faith : " Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul ! 99 
Thus he was delivered "out of a horrible pit" — "out of 
the miry clay" — his feet were "set upon a rock" — a new 
gong was "put in his mouth;" and he speaks of it as a 
matter of knowledge to him — yea, as having no doubt in re- 
gard to the great change which had taken place in his "in- 
ward man." Now, be candid and tell me if it does not seem 
to be plainly taught in the AYord of God that we may cer- 



The Furnace. 



245 



tainly know that we have passed from death unto life, and 
that this knowledge comes through the direct witness of 
God's Spirit with our spirit. 

Campbellite. I must confess that it seems to be so taught, 
and I will never again ridicule the doctrine of Holy Ghost 
religion. I pray that God may forgive my folly and sin in 
this matter. I now realize the truth of Jesus' language to 
his disciples: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall 
give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
forever; even the Spirit of truth" (John xiv. 16, 17). And 
"when the Comforter is come, ... he shall testify of me" 
(xv. 26). O the joy I feel this moment, because I realize 
that this great Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is here testify- 
ing of Jesus and his goodness to me! I now understand 
the witness of God's Spirit with my spirit as I never under- 
stood it before; it is "unspeakable, and full of glory" (1 
Pet. i. 8). My soul cries within me, "Thanks be unto God 
for his unspeakable gift!" (2 Cor. ix. 15). How plain that 
text in 1 John v. 9 now seems : " If we receive the witness 
of men, the witness of God is greater." All that could be 
done for my salvation by the ordinances of the Church has 
been done. I have believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God, have repented, confessed, been baptized, and have 
taken the holy sacrament — this has been my witness before 
men that I was a child of God ; but this bright moment I 
realize that the witness of God is far greater than all I can do 
by the use of all the ordinances of the Church. Heretofore 
I have been telling what I have done in what we call obeying 
the gospel, but now my soul cries out, " Come hither, all ye 
people, and let me tell you what the Lord hath done for me ! " 

Methodist. It seems that you have been mistaking the 
service of God for the worship of God. You seem to have 
forgotten that God is not "worshiped with me, is hands, as 
though he needed any thing" (Acts xvii. 25) — hence, you 



246 



The Furnace. 



aave esteemed your own works too highly, forgetting that 
" when ye shall have done all those things which are com- 
manded you, say, We are unprofitable servants" (Luke 
xvii. 10). "Do religion!" is the loud and constant cry of 
Campbellism. " I have done so and so, and obeyed this 
and that command of the Lord — yea, I have obeyed the 
gospel, therefore I have the promise of God that he will 
save me." This is the spirit of Campbellism, while the hum- 
ble followers of Christ are those who " worship God in the 
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in 
the flesh" (Phil. iii. 3). They realize that "in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcis- 
ion, but a new creature" (Gal. vi. 15). They, "through the 
Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith " (Gal. v. 
5), knowing that no amount of work or use of ordinances can 
purchase salvation, but it must come through " faith which 
worketh by love" (Gal. v. 6). Therefore, a true Christian 
is a faithful worker in the vineyard of the Lord, not in or- 
der to become a son, but because he is a son of God ; and be- 
ing a son, he does not go about his Father's business mur- 
muringly, but whatsoever he does he does it "heartily, as to 
the Lord, and not unto men" (Col. iii. 23). Henceforth 
my brother, I trust you w 7 ill ever be found " serving the 
Lord with all humility of mind" (Acts xx. 19) and wor- 
shiping him " in spirit and in truth " (John iv. 24). 

Campbellite. The Lord grant that I may serve him " not 
by constraint, but willingly " (1 Pet. v. 2) ; and that I may 
" give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name," and 
worship him " in the beauty of holiness " (Ps. xxix. 2). 
But, brother, before we part, I wish to say it seems to me 
that the Campbellites have the advantage of you Method- 
ists in that they have 

NO DISCIPLINE BUT THE BIBLE. 
Now, tell me why you have a discipline, or human creed 



The Furnace. 



247 



Methodist The shortest answer I can give you is this : We 
have published our creed to the world because we are neither 
ashamed nor afraid for the world to know what we believe 
concerning the teachings of the Bible. Of course you know 
that a man's creed is simply what he believes. 

Campbellite. Certainly ; I understand that. 

Methodist. Suppose a sinner asks you to preach a sermon 
giving a definite summary of what is believed and taught 
by the Caropbellites, would you do so ? 

Campbellite. Certainly I would. Why not? 

Methodist. If in that sermon you should give a brief ex- 
position of all the important points of doctrine taught by 
your Church, would it not be the creed of your Church? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, you know we hold that the Bible is 
our creed. Of course, when we preach we put a construc- 
tion on the teachings of the Bible which we think is legiti- 
mate. 

Methodist. Just so. Xow, please tell me which is your 
creed, the Bible or your construction of the Bible ? 

Campbellite. I — w-e-1-1, you know we must " rightly di- 
vide the word of truth" (2 Tim. ii. 15). Isow, in doing 
this we find that all the Old Testament belonged to the J ew- 
ish dispensation, and contains nothing that is binding on 
the people of the present Christian dispensation; also that 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are only historical books, 
and contain nothing that teaches a sinner what to do to be 
saved ; that the Acts of the Apostles is the only book in the 
Bible that tells a sinner what he must do to become a Chris- 
tian ; that the Epistles are only letters to the various organ- 
izations of the Christian Church, and tell a sinner nothing 
about what he must do to be saved. ISTow, you have it in a 
few words about as we teach it. 

Methodist. In what chapter and verse will I find all that? 
I had always thought " rightly dividing the word of truth r 



248 



The Furnace. 



meant about this : God's ministers must give to every person 
such scripture as is suitable to his state, character, and cir- 
cumstances. It had not occurred to me that we were to plead 
the Old Testament and the four evangelists out of date, and 
that the writers of the Epistles entirely ignored the poor 
sinner for whom Jesus died. Now, if you will read the 
" Pump " you will find that the condition on which a siuner 
is justified is plainly given in the Old Testament, the four 
Gospels, and all through the Epistles. How stupid Peter 
must have been ! Hear him : " To him give all the proph- 
ets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in 
him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts x. 43). What 
business had he referring to all the prophets on the subject 
of a sinner's salvation in this Christian dispensation, when, 
according to Campbellism, all that the prophets wrote be- 
longed to the Jewish dispensation, and contained nothing 
for the poor sinners of this dispensation ? It is sad, too, to 
think that Jesus came into this world for no other purpose 
than to save sinners. He preached, forgave sins, healed the 
sick, cast out devils, raised the dead, died on the cross, arose 
from the dead, and ascended to glory; but according to 
Campbellism — " tell it not in Gath ! " — he did not leave one 
word of instruction to the sinners of this dispensation as to 
the condition on which he would save them. " Blessed are 
they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt. v. 
4). "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall 
find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every 
one that asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth ; and 
to him that knocketh it shall be opened " (Luke xi. 9, 10). 
" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begot- 
ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have everlasting life" (John iii. 16). how sad that 
according to Campbellism these precious words of Jesus are 
out of date, and contain no consolation for the humble, con- 



The Furnace. 



trite sinners of this age! And Paul, poor Paul! what a 
pity he did not know better than to write to Timothy in re- 
gard to the Old Testament Scriptures in such language as 
this: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy 
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation 
through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. iii. 15). 
How strange that Paul did not tell him the Old Testament 
was a thing of the past, like an old law-book all of whose 
laws had been repealed — fit for nothing now except to show 
us what God's ways with man used to be; but instead of 
that just listen, and in the very next verse to the one I last 
quoted: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, fur in- 
struction in righteousness" (verse 16). All this, too, he wrote 
to Timothy in reference to the Old Testament. But, if pos- 
sible, Paul wrote more strongly in regard to Timothy's faith : 
<; When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is 
in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy 
mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also" (2 
Tim. i. 5). Timothy's mother and grandmother had no 
Bible to read except the Old Testament, and their faith was 
based on its teachings ; yet Timothy had the same faith which 
was in his mother and grandmother, and Paul thought 
that sufficient, and I am — 

CampheUite. Stop, brother; I see our theory about " right- 
ly dividing the word" will not do. I am done with it; but 
you have gotten off the question. We were talking about 
your creed, your discipline. We always invite sinners to 
join us on the Bible. 

Methodist. I know you do; but do you always tell them 
how much of the Bible you want them to join you on? You 
have just given me your creed in regard to " rightly divid- 
ing the word," and from that I think it would be honest in 
you to invite sinners to join von on the Acts of the Apos 



250 



The Furnace. 



ties; and to be very honest you should tell them that yon 
reject a large part of the Acts, such as people being " filled 
with the Holy Ghost " (Acts ii. 4), being " baptized with 
the Holy Ghost' 7 (i. 5), "receiving the Holy Ghost" 
(viii. 15), "Holy Ghost falling on the people" (x. 44) 
— in fact, that you reject all of the Acts which teaches 
the direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, teach- 
ing that that belonged to the apostolic age ; but be sure and 
tell them that you cling to all the water mentioned in Acts, 
and that even the water mentioned in the four Gospels is 
good for sinners of all ages, though according to your the- 
ory those books contain nothing from wmich a poor sinner 
can learn the way of salvation in the present age ; that if 
the Acts should by any mishap be lost from the Bible, 
though all the other books of the Old and New Testaments 
were preserved — O " publish it not in the streets of Asko- 
lon ! " — the world would be left without any instruction as to 
how a poor sinner can be saved in this Christian dispensa- 
tion. Yes, brother, you have given me some of your creed, 
and a horrible creed it is. No wonder you Campbellites 
want to keep it off of paper. But for my part I think it 
would be much more honest to formulate your creed, and 
put it into the hands of the public, that men might know 
just what a small part of the Bible you mean when you 
give that broad-looking, deceptive invitation : " Come and 
join us on the Bible." I am afraid of the man who will 
say things that he cannot be induced to write. Suppose a 
man offers you all you ask for your farm, and says he will 
pay you the cash on the twenty-fourth of December next pro- 
vided you will give him possession in ten days, and you say, 
"Just write me a note for the amount you promise to pay 
mo, making it due the twenty-fourth of December next, and 
you shall have possession in ten days ; " but he says : " No, 
I never write any thing about my business. The Constitu 



The Furnace. 



251 



Hon of the United States contains the fundamental laws of 
our Government, and I am governed by that alone. I do n't 
believe in men giving individual notes. We ought to be 
governed by the Constitution alone." You reply: "Sir, I 
am as far from violating any of the laws of our nation as you 
are. I only ask you to reduce to writing the promise you 
have spoken with your lips. In what sense would you vio- 
late the Constitution more by writing than you do by speak- 
ing a promise ?" But he still refuses to give his note. Now, 
would you move out and give him possession? 

Campbellite. No, I would not trust such a fool. If he 
says he will do a thing, why not write it ? 

Methodist. Why not, sure enough ? Is it not common for 
you and your brethren, when preaching, to say : " We teach 
thus and so; we believe thus and so; we differ from the 
sects in thus and so ; we will show you that the sects are 
wrong in thus and so ? " 

Campbellite. Yes, that is quite common with us. 

Methodist Now, will you be kind enough to inform me 
just where you would commit any more sin by formulating 
your thus's and so's, and giving them to the world in the 
form of a creed, than you do by spouting them from your 
pulpits on all occasions. 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, I must confess I cannot tell you. 

Methodist. Do n't you and your brethren often speak of 
the Methodist Discipline as the " Methodist Bible," and by 
various other means strive to impress the public mind that 
the Methodists use their Discipline as you use the Bible ? 

Campbellite. Yes, we do often seek to make that impres- 
sion. 

Methodist At the same time, do you not know that every 
Methodist is bound by our Discipline to accept the Bible 
as " the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith 
and practice " (Discipline, p. 33} ; and that in regard to 



252 



The Furnace. 



the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation the fifth 
article of religion declares that " the Holy Scriptures con 
tain all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoe^ er is 
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be 
required of any man that it should be believed as an article 
of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation " 
(Discipline, p. 13). 

Campbellite. Certainly, I know all that. 

Methodist. Then, is it any less than downright falsehood 
and slander for you to stand up and in the face of these 
facts call the Discipline of our Church the " Methodist 
Bible? 

Campbellite. I desire to dismiss the subject of creeds, and 
say to you that only one thing now remains about wluoh I 
wish to talk w T ith you, and that is 

A DIVINE CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 

You know we do not believe in any such call. Now, we 
think one Christian man has as much right to preach as 
another, and that you Methodists are in a great error in 
regard to a call to the ministry. 

Methodist. I know that is what you think; but let us 
come to the word of God at once : "And no man taketh 
this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as 
was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made 
a high-priest ; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, 
to-day have I begotten thee" (Heb. v. 4, 5). Here we 
learn (1) that Aaron was called of God to the office of 
high-priest ; (2) that " no man taketh this honor to him- 
self" unless he "is called of God, as was Aaron;" (3) that 
even " Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-priest," 
but his Father called him to that sacred office. That is 
plain, is it not? 

Campbellite. Certainly ; I believe all that. 



The Furnace. 



253 



Methodist. God also called his prophets and kings to their 
high offices, and carefully guarded these sacred offices against 
the usurpations of any who were not specially called of God. 
Notice the following passages carefully : " Therefore thus 
saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in 
my name, and I sent them not, ... By sword and famine 
shall those prophets be consumed" (Jer. xiv. 15). This 
passage is certainly a terror to a usurper. As to the priest- 
hood, take the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 
xvi.). They claimed that "all the congregation were holy" 
and that Moses and Aaron had " lifted themselves up above 
the congregation of the Lord" (verse 3). Their idea was 
that one man had as much right to act as priest as another, 
therefore they " sought the priesthood" (verse 10). God 
had not called them to this high office, therefore he caused 
"the earth to open her mouth," and they, with "all that 
appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, 
and the earth closed upon them" (verses 32, 33). Not 
even a king was allowed to usurp the office of a priest. 
"And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, 
It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto 
the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are con- 
secrated to burn incense ; go out of the sanctuary ; for thou 
hast trespassed ; neither shall it be for thine honor from the 
Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth [with the priests], and 
had a censer in his hand to burn incense ; and while he was 
wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his fore- 
head" (2 Chron. xxvi. 18, 19). Poor, foolish king! he 
"was a leper unto the day of his death" (verse 21). God 
also guarded the office of king. "Adonijah exalted him- 
self, saying, I will be king " (1 Kings i. 5). For his pre- 
sumption he was slain (1 Kings ii. 25). From the texts 
given above, you see how carefully God guarded these sa- 
cred offices for thousands of years before the coming of 



254 



The Furnace. 



Christ; but now you think one man has as much right tc 

enter the sacred ministry as another; or, in other words, 
you think God does not call any man to the ministry, but 
has left this matter entirely with men. 

Campbellite. Yes, that is what we teach. 

Methodist. Well, let us look into this matter very care- 
fully. When Jesus entered upon his public ministry, he 
did not leave it to men as to who he would have enter the 
sacred ministry, but he "called" and "ordained" such men 
as were suited to the work (Mark iii. 13, 14). One man 
seemed to have had the same idea about the matter that 
you have, and he volunteered to go with Jesus; but Jesus 
" saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them 
how great things the Lord hath done for thee " (Mark v. 
19). All good men and women ought to talk to their 
friends about the goodness of God, and do all the good they 
can in their sphere; but if this volunteer had had the same 
right to go with Jesus as one of his apostles that the twelve 
called by Jesus had, certainly he would have been allowed 
to go ; but Jesus would not let him go, so it is clear that he 
claimed the right to select his ministers. Now, let us no- 
tice the first official act of the apostles after Jesus ascended 
to heaven. It is recorded in Acts i. 24, 25: "And they 
prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of 
all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that 
he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from 
which Judas by transgression fell." Now, if one man had 
as much right to enter this ministry as another, or if the 
Church has the right to select ministers of the gospel who 
have not had a divine call to this work, why did the apos- 
tles refer this matter to God in prayer? 

Campbellite. ! you must remember that was before the 
day of Pentecost. That was all right then ; but there hag 
been no divine call to the ministry since Pentecost. 



The Furnace. 



255 



Methodist "After these things the Lord appointed other 
seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face 
into every city and place, w T hither he himself would come. 
Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, 
but the laborers are few ; pray ye therefore the Lord of the 
harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest" 
(Luke x. 1, 2). Here Jesus enjoins it on his disciples to 
" pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into 
his harvest;" but you think this injunction was to be bind- 
ing only till Pentecost. Is that it? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, 1 suppose so. 

Methodist. Is not Jesus the Lord of the harvest now, just 
as he was before Pentecost? 

Campbellite. Of course he is ; b-u-t — 

Methodist. But what ? Suppose a man is passing by your 
wheat-field with a reaper, and he says within himself, " This 
wheat needs reaping, and one man has as much right to reap 
it as another, so I will reap it; " and he enters the field with- 
out any contract or engagement with you whatever and cuts 
down your wheat. Then he comes to you and says : " Pay 
me for my labor; I have cut all of your wheat." What 
then? 

Campbellite. I would demand of him where he got his 
authority for cutting my wheat. I would inform him that 
I was lord of that harvest, and that he had no right to cut 
my wheat until I had employed him for that business. I 
would treat him as a presumptuous usurper. 

Methodist. You would ? And yet he has acted with you 
just as you say men should act with the Lord's harvest. 
Do you not see how those who passed your field w r ere de- 
ceived by that man ? Knowing it to be your field, they 
naturally supposed he had a special contract with you to 
reap your wheat ; but you would not own him as a servant, 
but were offended. Now, hear what the "Lord of the har- 



256 



The Furnace. 



vest " says of those who presume to prophesy in his name 
when he has not called and sent them : "And then will I 
profess unto them, I never knew you ; depart from me, ye 
that work iniquity" (Matt. vii. 23). To whom will Jesus 
address this language in the last day? To false proj^hets, 
who say: "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in ■ thy 
name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy 
name done many wonderful works ? " (verse 22). But what 
is a false prophet? That man who entered your field was a 
false servant, because he entered your premises of his own 
accord ; and so he is a false prophet who enters into the sa- 
cred ministry of his own will without a divine call to that 
great work. "Beware of false prophets, which come to 
you in sheep's clothing " (Matt. vii. 15). Get the idea here. 
They " come to you." They are not sent by proper author- 
ity. They come because they think they have as much 
right to prophesy as anybody. That man went to your 
wheat-field; he was not sent there by proper authority. 
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive 
many " (Matt. xxiv. 11). They are not called and sent, but 
they rise of their own accord. " Many false prophets are 
gone out into the world " (1 John iv. 1). They were not 
sent out by the "Lord of the harvest," but are gone out on 
their own responsibility. 

Campbellite. But show me where anybody had a divine 
call to the ministry after the day of Pentecost. 

Methodist Certainly. Take Paul's case. "But the Lord 
said unto him, Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto 
me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and 
the children of Israel" (Acts ix. 15). Hear Paul himself. 
" Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, sep- 
arated unto the gospel of God" (Bom. i. 1). "Paul, called 
to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God" (1 
Cor. i. 1). "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will oj 



The Furnace. 257 

God" (2 Cor. i. 1). Not by his own will, but "by the mil 
of God" "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, 
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him 
from the dead)" (Gal. i. 1). "Paul, an apostle of Jesus 
Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord 
Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. i. 1). By noticing carefully you will 
see that Paul states in nearly all of his Epistles that his au- 
thority is from God, and therefore he writes and preaches 
boldly; and here I wish to say this is what gives weight 
and influence to his writings and preaching. Suppose a 
very wealthy man in this State is doing a large business 
through agents who trade, make contracts to pay large 
sums of money, and in fact transact all kinds of business, 
all in the name of this rich man, who holds himself bound 
by any contract made by his agents. A man comes to you 
and proposes to buy one thousand dollars' worth of prop- 
erty from you in the name of the said rich man, the money 
to be paid six months hence. You ask him : "Are you one 
of the rich man's agents ? Has he employed you to trade 
for him?" He says: "No, I have no special authority from 
him ; but one man has as much right to trade in his name 
as another." Would you sell him your property? 

Campbellite. No, sir. I would regard him as a dishonest 
man, and unworthy the confidence of respectable people. 

Methodist Just so ; yet you Campbellite preachers say to 
those whom you propose to teach in the name of the Lord : 
" We do not profess to be called of God to preach the gos- 
pel. We do not believe any one is divinely called nowa- 
days;" and of course you cannot expect me to honor you 
as I would honor one who is " called of God as was Aaron." 
Now, let us notice the case of Barnabas. " The Holy Ghost 
said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where- 
unto I have called them " (Acts xiii. 2). Here we learn that 
Barnabas was called by the Holy Ghost about twelve yen re 
17 



258 



The Furnace. 



after Pentecost. Now, my brother, will you give roe one 
passage that says — or even intimates — that the time would 
ever come when God would cease to call men to preach the 
gospel, and give the matter entirely into the hands of men? 

Campbell 'ite. I cannot think of one just now. 

Methodist. "Christ is the head of the Church" (Eph. v. 
23). The Campbellite theory is that there is no direct in- 
fluence of Christ's spirit upon the hearts of men now, and 
that he does not directly call men to preach. Will you 
please tell me in what sense he is the head of his Church 
now? 

Campbellite. W-e-1-1, could he not be the head of the 
Church and not have direct communion with the Church? 

Methodist. Of what use would your head be if it had no 
direct communion with any part of your body ? Had you 
not just as well be without a head? 

Campbellite. Of course. Yes, my head is only useful to 
me when it has direct communion with the other members 
of my body ; but Christ has given us his word. 

Methodist. Suppose you write, and have printed in a book, 
the very best rules that were ever primed for the govern- 
ment of man in this life. Suppose nothing is omitted, but 
the whole duty of man is plainly marked out, would that 
do away with the necessity of a direct communion between 
your head and your body ? 

Campbellite. I suppose — of course when my head ceases 
to have direct communion with the other members of my 
body, I will be a dead man. 

Methodist. Now you state a fact; and just so soon as 
Christ, "the head of the Church," ceases to have direct 
communion with his Church, it is a dead Church. One 
other question: Suppose a man in this free country of ours 
gays, " This is a free country, and one man has as much 
right to hold an office as another, and I am going to hold 



The Furnace. 



259 



the office of Governor in the State of Tennessee," and be- 
gins to act in that capacity without having been called to 
that office by the vote of the people — how would that suit 
you? 

Campbellite. Not at all. Such a course as that, if adopted 
by the people generally, would break down all government, 
and create confusion beyond any thing we can conceive. 
That would be worse than heathens do. 

Methodist. Ah ! and yet that is the manner in which you 
Campbellites think we should act in God's Church. 

Campbellite. No, brother, I see we have no scripture in 
regard to a divine call to the ministry, and I now give it 
up. Can you give me one more passage on this important 
subject ? 

Methodist " Now then we are embassadors for Christ, as 
though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you in Christ's 
stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. v. 20). Now, if I 
speak of our embassador to France you understand that I 
refer to the man who has been sent by our Government to 
represent it and manage its interests at the court of France ; 
and you know also that the authorities of France would 
have an utter contempt for the man who would presume to 
act in that capacity who had not been chosen and clothed 
with proper authority by this Government. You are aware 
too that though this nation has its constitution and laws, 
this does not render it unnecessary for their embassador to 
keep up constant communion with the authorities which 
sent him. So we are embassadors for Christ, called and 
sent by Christ to represent him in the interests of his 
Church ; and we must have daily communion with him if 
we would please him in this great work. This is a high 
and holy calling ; and how strange that any man will pre- 
sume to enter the ministry who has not been " called of 
God," and clothed with authority from heaven 1 



260 



The Furnace. 



Campbellite. It does seem strange that I had not looked 
at this matter in its proper light before ; but I need some 
rest now, and want some time also to study the matters 
about which we have been talking. Then I desire to see 
you again, and we will have a closing interview. 

Methodist. Very well. Having given some special atten- 
tion to the matters we have been discussing, noting impor- 
tant points, my notes may help you some. Take them, and 
study the points closely till we meet again. 

Campbellite. Thank you. I will give my whole atten- 
tion to the matter, and let you hear my conclusion. 

LAST INTERVIEW. 

Methodist. Well, my brother, two weeks have passed since 
we parted, and I trust you are ready to give me the result 
of your investigation. 

Campbellite. I am ready. The first thing that impressed 
me forcibly was the entire absence of scripture to sustain 
the Campbellite theory on any of the points discussed by 
us, and the abundance of scripture to sustain the Methodist 
doctrine. It seems to me also that your doctrine is sus- 
tained by reason as well; and I will give you a few of the 
leading points, which I think you fully sustained: (1) That 
the whole race of Adam is totally depraved in the sense 
that their whole being is affected by the fall of Adam; (2) 
that God has not created a soul since he created the soul of 
Adam; (3) that Eve was created in Adam, soul and body; 
(4) that the soul of a child is from its parents ; (5) that in- 
fants are brought into this world in a corrupt, fallen state, 
without any will or act of theirs; (6) that Christ in his 
death provides for their salvation from this state without 
any will or act of theirs; (7) that Christ died for none but 
the ungodly; (8) that if infants are not ungodly in some 
sense, Christ did not die for them ; (9) that the death of 



The Furnace. 



261 



Christ did not change the moral state of any; (10) that his 
death only removed the difficulties, prepared the means, 
and made it possible for all to be saved; (11) that the soul 
of man is called the " inward man;" (12) that this "in- 
ward man" has five spiritual senses; (13) that by means of 
these spiritual senses the " inward man " can deal with spir- 
itual matters as sensibly as the " outward man " can deal 
with temporal matters ; (14) that spirit can act upon spirit 
as sensibly as matter can act upon matter; (15) that when 
a man is born of the Spirit he is conscious of the fact; (16) 
that no more can one be born of the Spirit without direct 
contact with the Spirit than a child can be born of its 
mother without direct contact with her; (17) that God 
called his prophets, priests, and kings to their high offices 
in former days; (18) that he guarded their offices against 
usurpers; (19) that there are no true ministers of the gos- 
pel except such as are called of God ; (20) that the Camp- 
bellites use false and slanderous language when they speak 
of the Methodist Discipline as the Methodist Bible ; (21) 
1'hat it would be more honest in Campbellites to give their 
creed to the world in book form than it is for them to spout 
fractional parts of it in their sermons ; (22) that the Camp- 
bellite idea of "dividing the word of truth" is entirely 
without support from the Bible ; (23) that the Campbellites 
do not accept even all of the Acts ; (24) that their invita- 
tion to the world to join them on the Bible is very decep- 
tive ; (25) that Paul in his Epistles to Timothy — 

Methodist There, that will do. Now, give me your con- 
clusion. 

Campbellite. Since we parted I have studied the points of 
our discussion closely, and I laid aside all prejudice and 
read your sermon on the "Bight of a Sinner to Pray," the 
" Grub-ax," and the " Pump." I had read them before, but 
with a good deal of prejudice. Now, I must say it is clear 



262 



The Furnace. 



to me that Carapbellisro will not do. I think it is much ad 
you stated in the notes you gave me. You said: " Camp- 
bellism is too short at both ends. It does not reach as low 
as the deep depravity of our race, and I fear it will not 
reach as high as heaven. It honors poor human nature too 
highly, and does not honor God enough." I also found 
other items in the notes which impressed me-* 

Methodist. Can you give me some of those items? 

Campbellite. Yes, sir. In reference to a divine call to the 
ministry you said: "Paul says, 'Necessity is laid upon me; 
yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel ' (1 Cor. ix. 
16). ' For Christ sent me ... to preach the gospel' (1 Cor. 
i. 17). Here we learn that it would have gone ill, very ill, 
with Paul if he had refused to preach the gospel, having 
been sent by Christ to perform that duty. Now, hear Paul 
in regard to preachers generally : 'And how shall they preach 
except they be sent?' (Rom. x. 15). But who has the right 
to send ministers into this great work? All of the infor- 
mation we can get from the Bible on thi* subject gives this 
right to God. Who will give us one passage that gives this 
right to any but God? God, the Holy Ghost, appoints his 
own overseers in his Church. ' Take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you overseers' (Acts xx. 28). 'And God 
hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly proph- 
ets, thirdly teachers" (1 Cor. xii. 28). if I was not sent 
by Christ to preach the gospel, if the Holy Ghost had not 
made me an overseer in the Church, if God had not set me 
in this high office in his Church, how could I say, 'We 
preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and our- 
selves your servants for Jesus' sake ' (2 Cor. iv. 5)." And 
on the 

DIEECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIEIT 
you said: "Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth, 1 Know 



The Furnace. 



263 



ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of 
God dwelleth in you?' (1 Cor. iii. 16). But you say, The 
Spirit of God does dwell in his Church, but not in the 
hearts of individual members. Now, I ask, Of what is the 
Church composed? Is it not composed of individual mem- 
bers? If there had been no individual in Corinth who be- 
longed to God's Church, would there have been any Church 
of God in Corinth? Certainly not. Then, suppose the 
Spirit of God did not dwell in the individual members, is 
it not clear that he did not dwell in the Church at all ? To 
illustrate: Suppose I present you with a tea-set, and say, 
' This set contains tea, but no individual piece belonging to 
the set contains any tea.' Could not even a simpleton see 
the folly of such a statement? Is it not clear that that 
which does not dwell in any of the component parts of a 
thing does not dwell in the thing? So, then, it is clear that 
the Spirit of God dwells in the hearts of true Christians, 
else he does not dwell in the Church." I was impressed 
with these words on 

KIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WOED OF TEUTH: 

" In a Bible of one thousand pages, the Acts of the Apos- 
tles occupies just twenty pages ; or, in plain words, the Acts 
is just one-fiftieth of the whole Bible. Now, in your ' Proper 
Division of the Word ' you teach that the Acts is the only 
book in the Bible from which a sinner can learn what to do 
to be saved. Neither one nor all of the other books con- 
tain any information as to how a sinner can be saved in 
this Christian dispensation. Then, if your theory is cor- 
rect, if the Bible be divided into fifty equal parts, forty- 
nine of those parts may be thrown away; and the instruc- 
tions in regard to what is required of a sinner in order to 
his justification are just as full and satisfactory as if those 
forty-nine parts had been retained. When Paul said to 



264 



The Furnace. 



Timothy, ' Rightly dividing the word of truth ' (2 Tim. it 
15), who but a Campbellite ever dreamed of his meaning, 
'Throw nearly all of it away?' But what did Paul mean? 
Just this: Give to each person the scripture suited to his 
state and condition. To illustrate : If you find a Christian 
cast down in spirit, quote to him such texts as this: ' Why 
art thou cast down, O my soul ? and why art thou disquieted 
in me? Hope thou in God; for I shall yet praise him for 
the help of his countenance ' (Ps. xlii. 5) ; but if one is in 
deep trouble say to him, My brother, your Father says to 
you, 'Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver 
thee, and thou shalt glorify me ' (Ps. 1. 15). Should you 
minister to a poor mourner, say to him : Jesus Christ came 
into the world and died that you might live. He says he 
came to ' comfort all that mourn ' (Isa. lxi. 2). ' Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved' (Acts 
xvi. 31). But if a stubborn sinner violently opposes the 
gospel of Christ, say to him : ' Ye stiff-necked and uncircuni- 
cised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost ' 
(Acts vii. 51). This construction of Paul's language to 
Timothy seems to be perfectly natural and reasonable." 
There were many other points of some importance in your 
notes, but I think enough has been written in your pam- 
phlets to convince any unprejudiced mind that Campbell- 
ism is not Bibleism. I have searched diligently since we 
parted for one text that would sustain the Campbellite the- 
ory in regard to the proper division of the word, and failed 
to find it. I also failed to find one passage that would sus- 
tain their doctrine of " no direct influence of the Spirit " 
and " no divine call to the ministry." I now wish to give 
only one other item from your notes. It is in regard to the 

SOUL. 

u If the 1 inward man ' — soul — be not endowed with five 



The Furnace. 



265 



spiritual senses — if it cannot see, hear, taste, smell, and feel 
— tell me what kind of a being the soul will be when it leaves 
the body. Will it know any thing? Can it do any thing? 
Will it be capable of feeling any thing? When God says 
to the souls of the just, ' Come, ye blessed, . . . inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the 
world," will those souls hear these blessed words? When 
they enter the city of God will they hear the sweet strains 
of the ' song of Moses and the Lamb ? ' Will they see the 
jasper walls and golden streets of the city ? O tell me, is 
it a fact that when Jesus shall appear ( ive shall see him as 
he isf (1 John iii. 2)." Now, brother, I am done with 
Campbellism forever. I have realized a great spiritual 
change since we began our discussion. I have erected a 
family altar, and intend to " walk in the Spirit " the re- 
mainder of my days, God being my helper. 

Methodist. " They that wait upon the Lord shall renew 
their strength ; they shall mount up with wings as eagles ; 
they shall run and not be weary ; and they shall walk and 
not faint" (Isa. xl. 31). "As many as are led by the Spirit 
of God, they are the sons of God " (Eom. viii. 14). Sub- 
mit to him, and he will " guide you into all truth " (John 
xvi. 13). And now, may "the grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Ghost be with you all" (2 Cor. xiii. 14). Be sure 
and continue your communion with the Holy Ghost. 



THE SHIPWRECK. 

Apostasy and Close Communion. 



PREFACE. 



" War a good warfare ; holding faith, and a good conscience ; 
which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck; 
of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto 
Satan" (1 Tim. i. 18-20). "Wherefore let him that thinketh he 
standeth take heed lest he fall " (1 Cor. x. 12). " Because of unbe- 
lief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not 
high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, 
take heed lest he also spare not thee " (Rom. xi. 20, 21). " Let us 
labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the 
same example of unbelief" (Heb. iv. 11). Some say: "Faith cannot 
be shipwrecked ; those who belong to Christ can never be delivered 
to Satan; those who once stand can never fall; those who have been 
grafted into Christ can never be broken off; once in Christ, always in 
Christ; if you are a child of God to-day, you are safe, and as sure of 
heaven as if you were already there." Seeing some did make ship- 
wreck of the faith, and were delivered to Satan, and all who stand are warned 
to take heed LEST they fale, I have thought proper to look into 
this question a little, and in the light of God's word to point out the 
safe way to the land of rest, hoping, by the grace of God, I may aid 
some who may read this little book in making a safe voyage to 
heaven. Jxo. H. Nichols. 

Bethel, Tenn., June 29, 1886. f 269^1 



INTRODUCTION. 



Some say, "A Christian cannot possibly fall from grace and be 
lost ; " others say, "A Christian is liable to fall and 1 become a cast- 
away ' — be lost." Some say, " The many warnings in the Bible 
prove the possibility and the probability of apostasy; " others say, " No, 
they are only given to make Christians cautious;" but others say, 
" Why be cautious if there is no danger?" Loader, just back of 
your residence there is a field which you have plowed twenty times, 
and you are well acquainted with every foot of it. You know that 
there is not a rock, stump, or gully in the field. Late in the even- 
ing a stranger stops with you for the night. After it is dark it be- 
comes necessary for this stranger to pass across that field alone with- 
out a light. As he starts you say to him, u In crossing that field 
take heed less you dash your foot against a stone, or fall over a 
stump, or plunge into a gully and break your neck." At the same 
time you know it is not possible for him to do either of the things you 
warned him against. I ask, Have you not lied to the stranger ? We 
know nothing of the way to heaven except what God has revealed 
to us in his word. God knows every inch of the way. All admit that 
the word of God abounds with warnings to his children, and if there 
is no danger — ay, if God knows that it is impossible for them to fall — 
does not the Almighty lie to his children? 

To the discussion of this question this little book is devoted by 

The Author. 



(270) 



OHAPTEE VII. 



The Shipwreck. 



Baptist. Good-morning, sir. I understand that you are 
the author of "Grub-ax," "Pump," etc. Am I correct? 

Methodist. You are, sir. What do you wish? 

Baptist. I wish to inform you that I am a member of the 
Church, and I regard your "Grub-ax" and "Pump" as 
direct attacks on the doctrines of the Church, and I think 
no one but a weak, foolish man would have written such 
books. 

Methodist. Perhaps not; but you must remembei, "God 
hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the 
wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to 
confound the things which are mighty" (1 Cor. i. 27). 
There are so many of the Churches, you will excuse me if 
I ask, To which of the Churches do you belong? 

Baptist The Baptist Church, of course. We take our 
name from John the Baptist. True, he did not fully or- 
ganize the Church, but he prepared much of the material, 
and Christ organized the Church. 

Methodist. But some of you Baptists want the third chap- 
ter of Matthew T and first verse to read, " In those days came 
John the Immerser." If that is the way it should read, 
you should change your name, for there is no John the 
Baptist, according to that reading. But, seriously, will 
you tell me when and where Christ organized the Baptist 
Church? 

Baptist. Well, I — I can't give you the exact time and 
place, but I wish to talk with you on the subject of 

APOSTASY. 

You know we Baptists believe that it is impossible for one 
who has been born of the Spirit to fall from grace and be 

(271) 



:272 



The Shipwreck 



finally lost; or, in plain words, we believe in the uncoil 
ditional final perseverance of the saints. 

Methodist. If your doctrine is true, I see no reason why 
we Methodists should be concerned on the subject, for we 
believe in a clear spiritual regeneration ; and if a regener- 
ated Baptist cannot fall, I suppose a regenerated Methodist 
is safe too. You believe there are genuine Christians in 
the Methodist Church. 

Baptist. O yes: but you are in error on the subject of 
apostasy, and we feel it our duty to set you right. 

Methodist Suppose we are in error, what does it matter? 
If we have been born of the Spirit we are safe, according 
to your doctrine, no matter what we believe or do. But it 
is possible you are in error, and if you are it may be vour 
eternal ruin, while we Methodists could lose nothing if you 
are correct ; so you see we are on the safe side of this ques- 
tion, and if there is an unsafe side of the question you are 
on that side. 

Baptist. Y-e-s ; but while we know we are safe, we know 
also that we should "feed the sheep. n 

Methodist. Why feed the sheep ? Why look after them 
at all ? If it is impossible for the wolf to get any of them, 
and if they will all be received as well when they get to the 
market without feed as with it, why waste feed on them ? 
In plain words, when a man is converted, if he is as safe as if 
he were in heaven, there is just as much sense in preaching 
to the angels as there is in preaching to him. Why waste 
gospel on men and women who are safe, and whose eternal 
salvation can be made no more certain by all we can do 
for them ? If I believed as you do, I would never preach 
another sermon to Christians. If they called on me for a 
sermon, I would say : " You are safe, and I cannot make 
your chance for heaven one whit more certain than it is. 
Go on your way rejoicing; I must look after poor sinners/' 5 



The Shipwreck. 



273 



Baptist. But have you any objection to our doctrine ? 

Methodist. I certainly have. The new birth is a spiritual 
birth. " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 
iii. 6). " For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit " (Gal. v. 
17). Now, if a Christian really believes it is impossible 
for Kim to fall, will he not be more likely to give way to 
the flesh and commit sin than he would if he believed he 
was liable to fall? 

Bcqytist. However it may seem to you, I cannot think a 
truly converted man is in any danger of falling. 

Methodist. Suppose the devil tempts a Christian to sin, 
and the flesh longs to yield to the temptation. Now sup- 
pose that Christian reasons thus: "I am as safe as if I were 
in heaven; nothing that I can do will lessen my chances 
for eternal life ; and why deny my flesh the pleasure of this 
sin ? Why not enjoy this world while I am here, for it 
will not make my joy in heaven any less certain ?" 

Baptist. I care nothing for your suppositions. I will 
give the word of Christ, which settles the question beyond a 
doubt : " He that heareth my word, and belie veth on him 
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into 
condemnation " (John v. 24). " Hath everlasting life, and 
shall not come into condemnation." You know that we hold 
that the wills and shalls of God are conclusive. Now, here 
is one who hath " eternal life" and God's shall stands be- 
tween him and condemnation. Hoiv can he possibly fall f 

Methodist. Let us notice the conditions expressed in this 
passage: " He that heareth my word, and believeth on him 
that sent me." "Heareth" and "believeth" are in the present 
tense, and while a man continues to hear and believe he is 
safe. 

Baptist. Ah! that won't do. When a man once believes 
on Jesus " to the saving of the soul," the eternal "shall" 
of God stands between him and hell forever. 
18 



27i 



The Shipwreck. 



Methodist. Take another verse : "He that believeth not 
the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on 
him " ( John iii. 36). Suppose, in preaching to an audience 
of Christians and sinners. I should say: "AH who do not 
believe on the Son of God. please stand up." One hundred 
persons arise. I say to them : " Gentlemen, you are as sure 
of hell as if you were already there. k He that believeth not 
the Son shall not see Hie: The eternal 'shall' of God stands 
between you and heaven, and there is no chance for you to 
be saved." How would you like that? 

Bcqrfisi. Sot at all. Of course that means they shall not 
see life while they remain in unbelief. 

Methodist. Now you talk sensibly. Just apply the same 
interpretation to the passage you quoted, and you will see 
those who have eternal life shall not perish if they continue 
believing. A sinner has eternal death in him. and it will 
remain in him as long as he remains in unbelief. A 
Christian has eternal life in him, and it will remain in him 
as long as he continues to believe. " But when the right- 
eous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth 
iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that 
the wicked man doeth, ... in his trespasses that he 
hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
shall he die " i^Ezek. xviii. 24). Now you see that if all 
who now believe on Christ are as safe as if they were 
in heaven, basing your arguments on the wills and shalls 
of God, by the same rule of interpretation all who do 
not now believe on him are as sure of hell as if they were 
there. 

Baptist But we are " dead," and our life is " hid with 
Christ in God/' and " Christ is our life;'' then how can we 
die spiritually unless Christ, who is our life, dies? Surely 
we are safe as long as Christ lives, if he is our life. 

Methodist. Certainly we are safe if we comply with the 



The Shipwkeck. 



275 



conditions expressed in the very next verse after the one to 
which you refer : " Mortify therefore your members which 
are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate 
affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is 
idolatry ; for which things' sake the wrath of God cometh 
on the children of disobedience" (Col. iii. 5, 6). We no- 
tice here that the perseverance of the saints is conditional, 
and the " wrath of God cometh on " all who disregard these 
conditions. 

Baptist. But Christ is our life, and how can we die unless 
Christ dies first? 

Methodist " The body without the Spirit is dead" (James 
ii. 26). The soul is the life of the body. Must the soul die 
before the body can die ? How foolish ! 

Baptist. The names of God's children are " written in the 
Lamb's book of life." Do you think God will scratch some 
of the names off, and thus have a blotted boohf 

Methodist. I will let God answer: "And the Lord said 
unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I 
blot out of my book " (Ex. xxxii. 33). Could one be blotted 
out of a book who had never been in it? 

BaptUt. W-e-1-1 — I reckon not ; but I had not noticed that 
text. 

Methodist. I suppose not; and from the great ado some 
of your brother ministers make about God not keeping a 
blotted book, I think you have plenty of company. Let us 
read John xv. 5 : "I am the vine, ye are the branches. He 
that aoideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth 
much fruit." Who are the branches of Christ ? 

Baptist. His true children, of course; and once his chih 
dren, they must always be his children. 

Methodist. Take the next verse (verse 6) : "If a man 
abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is with 
ered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, 



276 



The Shipwreck. 



and they are burned." Could this language apply to any 
one who had never been a true branch of Christ ? 
Baptist. AV-e-1-1 — I reckon not. 

Methodist Does not this verse plainly teach that those 
who have as positive connection with Christ as the branches 
have with the vine may so act that they will be cut off 
from Christ and burned in hell, as the unfruitful branches 
of a vine are cut off and burned in the fire? 

Baptist. W-e-1-1 — I don't wish to commit myself — I — 

Methodist, Very well. Take another verse: " When the 
righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and commit- 
teth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations 
that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?" (Ezek. xviii. 
24). Now, brother, how would you answer this question? 

Baptist. I would say, yes; he shall live. Once in grace 
always in grace. Iso chance for a righteous man to be 
finally lost. 

Methodist You and God differ. Hear his answer: "All 
his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; 
in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that 
he hath sinned, in them shall he die" (Ezek. xviii. 24). 
Now which shall we believe, you or God ? You say he 
cannot die, and God says "he shall die." 

Baptist O-f — course I do not presume to — 

Methodist. Hear Paul to the Galatians: "Ye are fallen 
from grace " (Gal. v. 4). How about that ? 

Baptist. They fell for the want of grace ; of course they 
would not have fallen if they had had grace to stand. 

Methodist. That is a heavy charge against God. He said 
to Paul, " My grace is sufficient for thee" (2 Cor. xii. 9). 
Again, " Unto every one of us is given grace according to 
the measure of the gift of Christ " (Eph. iv. 7). But you 
think the measure of the gift of Christ was not sufficient to 
enable the Galatians to stand. 



The Shipwreck. 



277 



Baptist. ! I mean they never had any grace to fall from. 

Methodist. Just think of a boy falling from a tree because 
he had no tree to fall from ! Brother, please do n't talk 
that sort of nonsense any more. They fell because they 
had "done despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Heb. x. 29). 
For God " giveth grace unto the humble " (James iv. 6). 

Baptist. We will leave the Galatians, if you please, and 
T will give you a few verses from the eighth chapter of Ro- 
mans that will settle this question beyond a doubt: "Who 
shall separate us from the love of Christ ? shall tribulation, 
or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, 
or sword? .... For I am persuaded, that neither 
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, 
nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us 
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" 
(Rom. viii. 35-39). This language is so strong and clear 
it needs no comment. It teaches plainly that there is no 
power in heaven, earth, or hell that can separate a child of 
God from his love How, then, can they fall ? 

Methodist The question of apostasy is not even hinted at 
m Romans viii The quotation you made from that chap- 
ter does not touch the question. 

Baptist Astonishing! I never heard of such an idea 
before. What do you mean ? 

Methodist. Let us look at this chapter carefully, and I 
think you will see what I mean. Take the first verse: 
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which 
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit." We notice the conditions on which one is free 
fiom condemnation: (1) He must be "in Christ Jesus;" 
(2) he must not "walk after the flesh;" (3) he must "walk 
after the Spirit" From the fifth to the nineteenth verses 
the apostle shows: (1) What harm cometh of following the 



278 



The Shipwreck. 



flesh; (2) what good coineth of following the Spirit; (3) 
what good cometh of being children of God. Then in the 
verses you quoted he shows that no power in earth or hell 
can take from those " who are in Christ u the love of God. 
u which is in Christ Jesus our Lord " The love of God be- 
ing in Christ, the apostle's argument is that those who would 
enjoy that love must remain in Christ. While the question 
as to whether or not one in Christ can possibly get out of 
him is not raised in the chapter, yet from the apostle's ar- 
gument, showing the great blessings that come to those who 
remain in him, it might be inferred that, possibly, those in 
Christ might get out of him. At any rate it is clear that 
the apostle in this chapter does not teach any thing to the 
contrary. Now, is it not clear that the apostle teaches 
in this chapter that if any are in Christ, and walk after 
the Spirit, no power can separate them froin the love 
of God ? Is it not also fairly inferable that if any are in 
Christ, and walk after the flesh, they shall come into con- 
demnation ? 

Baptist. W-e-1-1, you are giving the eighth of Romans a 
different construction from any I ever heard. 

Methodist. That may be ; but you Baptists, and others who 
teach as you do, have misled the people long enough by 
your wrong construction of this chapter, and I hope you 
will do so no more. 

Baptist. I must acknowledge that your view of this 
chapter seems to be correct; but I am certain you Meth- 
odists make a great mistake when you attempt to prove the 
possibility of apostasy from 2 Peter ii. 20-22. Let us read 
it : " For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the 
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the 
latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it 
had been better for them not to have known the way of 



The Shipwreck. 



279 



righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from 
the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is 
happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog 
is turned to his own vomit again ; and the sow that was 
washed to her wallowing in the mire." Now, sir, that dog 
was never any thing but a dog, and that sow was never 
any thing but a sow, and I do not see how you can get 
apostasy out of that. 

Methodist. I never heard any one claim that that dog 
was any thing but a dog, or that the sow was any thing but 
a sow ; but this much is certain : the dog got sick and vom- 
ited, as a sinner gets sick of sin and gives it up, but after a 
time the dog turned to his own vomit again, as too many 
converted persons do to their old sins; and the sow was 
washed, as penitent sinners are " washed by the washing of 
regeneration," but she got all covered with mud again by 
wallowing in the mire, as some regenerated persons defile 
themselves with sin. My dear sir, there is nothing taught 
in this passage but the possibility of apostasy. How old 
w a re you when converted? 

Baptist. I was a man, twenty-two years old. 

Methodist. Were you any thing but a man after your con- 
version ? 

Baptist. No; but I was a pure man, whereas I was cor- 
rupt before. 

Methodist. Now, if I should say. "You were never any 
thing but a man, therefore you have not been converted," 
it would be the same kind of logic you use when you try to 
break the force of the apostle's argument in this passage by 
saying, " He was never any thing but a dog, and she was 
never any thing but a sow." Look at the passage a mo- 
ment. The persons spoken of (1) had " escaped the pollu- 
tions of the world through Jesus Christ;" (2) they were 
"again entangled therein, and overcome;" (3) the lat- 



280 



The Shipwreck. 



ter end was worse with them than the beginning;" (4) 
they had gotten so low in sin that nothing was suitable to 
illustrate their shameful apostasy but a greedy dog and a 
filthy sow. Yet they had been children of God. 

Baptist O you horrify me ! The idea of God casting off 
his children is so repulsive to me! 

Methodist. That may be, but if "God spared not the 
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and deliv- 
ered them into chains of darkness" (2 Peter ii. 4), how can 
you think it impossible for one of God's children to sin, and 
be "cast off forever?" (1 Chron. xxviii. 9). 

Bajotist. The case of the angels was very different from 
ours. " The same is true now of all angels — one sin would 
hurl from the battlements of heaven the brightest angel that 
vies around the throne of God." (T. C. Blake, in " Old Log 
House," page 198.) But not so with God's children here; 
they are as safe as if they were in heaven. 

Methodist. Yes, even safer than if they were in heaven, 
if your doctrine is true; for Jesus says of those who shall 
get to heaven, " For they are equal unto the angels " (Luke 
xx. 36). If one sin will hurl an angel from heaven to hell 
— and the saints are equal unto the angels — one sin will 
hurl a saint from heaven to hell. So if the saints cannot 
fall while on earth, but can fall at any time after they get 
to heaven, it will be a curse rather than a blessing to get to 
heaven. 

Baptist. You give me the horrors ! I do n't see — 
Methodist. Keep cool, brother. Adam fell, and was not 

he a son of God? "Which was the son of Seth, which was 

the son of Adam, which was the son of God " (Luke iii. 

38). Now, if one son of God can fall, cannot two fall; and 

if two can fall, cannot ten thousand fall ? 

Baptist. It is true Adam fell, but — I — w-e-1-1 — 
Methodist. If you can't manage Adam's case, take the 



The Shipwreck. 



281 



case of Judas, who "by transgression fell." How about 
that? 

Baptist. Judas was a devil from the beginning. "Away, 
then, with the idea that he fell from grace; he never had 
any grace." (Blake, "Old Log House," pages 203-4.) 

Methodist, "And he [Jesus] ordained twelve that they 
should be with him, and that he might send them forth to 
preach, and to have power to heal sickness, and cast out 
devils" (Mark iii. 14, 15). In giving the names of the 
twelve, Judas's name is given (verse 19). Notice, (1) Jesus 
ordained Judas; (2) sent him to preach; (3) gave him 
power to heal sickness; (4) gave him power to cast out 
devils. And you say "Judas had no grace ! " What a 
great responsibility Jesus did put upon Judas, and yet gave 
him no grace! You certainly did not think what you were 
saying. 

Baptist. Why, does not the Bible say Judas had a devil 
from the beginning? 

Methodist. Not a word of it. Tell me where to find it. 

Baptist. I don't remember just now, but I have heard it- 
quoted often. Do you really believe Judas was ever a good 
man ? 

Methodist. Suppose a man comes before a Methodist 
Quarterly Conference and asks for license to preach, and 
suppose it is known to the presiding elder, the preacher in 
charge, and to all of the members of the Quarterly Confer- 
ence that he is a devil ; nevertheless, they grant him license 
to preach. What would you think of them ? 

Baptist. I would think they had committed a great sin. 

Methodist. Yet you think Jesus ordained a devil; sent 
him to preach, heal the sick, and cast out devils. At the 
same time Jesus knew he was a devil; for Jesus knew all 
things. 

Baptist. W-e-14 — b-u-t — Judas was — 



2S2 



The Shipwreck. 



Methodist. Hold a moment. " His bishopric let another 
take" (Acts i. 20). Webster says: "Bishopric — the dis- 
trict over which the jurisdiction of a bishop extends.'" So 
it would seem that Judas was a bishop in the Church; but 
from his " ministry and apostleship Judas by transgression 
fell" (Acts i. 25). Just think of a devil falling by trans- 
gression! If he was a devil before he fell, what was he 
after he fell ? 

Baptist. I may be wrong about Judas's case. Can vou 
give me any more light? 

Methodist "And they prayed and said. Thou, Lord, 
which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these 
two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this minis- 
try and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression 
fell " (Acts i. 24, 25). Notice, (1) The apostles asked God 
to show who should take the place of Judas; (2) they did 
not ask for one to take any higher office in the Church, 
nor any greater responsibilities than those from which Ju- 
das fell. Question: If Judas was a devil all the while he 
was filling this high office in the Church, could not another 
devil fill it after he fell ? In all candor, do you really be- 
lieve Jesus put a devil into such a high office in the Church 
of God? 

Baptist. W-e-1-1 — I do n't exactly understand this case : 
but I can't see how an unchangeable God can justify a man 
to-day and condemn him to-morrow. How can that be. un- 
less God changes? 

Methodist. Before you were converted were you a con- 
demned sinner in the sight of God? 

Baptist. Certainly I was. 

Methodist. After you were born of the Spirit were you 
justified before God? 

Baptist. Certainly I was: but I do not see your point. 
Methodist. The point is, while you were a sinner you 



The Shipwreck. 



283 



were condemned in the sight of God, but when you became 
a Christian you were justified in his sight, Now, did God 
change, or was the change in you? 

Baptist. Of course God did not change. The change was 
in me. 

Methodist. Well, suppose you change again, and " there 
be in you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the 
living God " (Heb. iii. 12), and like some who are men- 
tioned in Hebrews, fourth chapter, you "fall after the same 
example of unbelief" (verse 11); or like others who " wrest 
the Scriptures unto their own destruction/ 7 you, " being led 
away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own 
steadfastness" (2 Peter iii. 16, 17), and God condemns you; 
will that prove that God has changed t 

Baptist. W-e-14 — I reckon not; but can you give me a 
case from the Bible where any one shipwrecked faith ? 

Methodist. " War a good warfare ; holding faith and a 
good conscience; which some having put away concerning 
faith have made shipwreck " (1 Tim. i. 18, 19). Observe, 
(1) Those here spoken of had the faith that produces a good 
conscience ; (2) they put away a good conscience ; (3) con- 
cerning faith they made shipwreck. Now, when a vessel is 
wrecked is it not lostt 

Baptist Yes; but how many made shipwreck of their 
faith? 

Methodist. I do not know, but Paul mentions two here, 
" Hymeneus and Alexander" (verse 20). He mentions 
Alexander after this as being an enemy to the cause of 
Christ: "Alexander . . . did me much evil" (2 Tim. 
iv. 14). Here we have a man who once had faith in Christ, 
and a good conscience, but he put away his good conscience, 
and shipwrecked his faith, and became an enemy to the 
cause of Christ, and opposed the apostle Paul in his teach- 
ings. Does n't that look like apostasy ? 



2S4 



The Shipwreck. 



Baptist, W-e-1-1— it looks a little like it, b-u-t— 
Methodist. Take another ease: "It is impossible for those 

who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly 
gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have 
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto re- 
pentance n (Heb. vi. 4-6). Now, notice the words that I 
have italicized, and mark the rich Christian experience of 
the class here spoken of; yet they could so fall as to ren- 
der it impossible to renew them again unto repentance. 
A child of God can't fall, you say? 

Baptist. I — I — hardly know how about it. 

Methodist. When a child of God makes shipwreck of the 
faith, do n't you think he becomes a child of the devil? 

BaptUt. How can that be ? Can you prove that? 

Methodist. When Hyineneus and Alexander made ship- 
wreck of the faith, Paul said of them: "Whom I have de- 
livered unto Satan" (1 Tim. i. 20). Now, if they had al- 
ways belonged to Satan how could Paul have delivered 
them unto Satan? 

Baptist. I must confess that I do not know; but I do not 
understand how one who has been " sanctified by the blood 
of the covenant " can be finally cast down to hell. How 
can such a thing be? 

Methodist. Paul will give you some light : " For if we sin 
willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the 
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a cer- 
tain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, 
which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Mo- 
ses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses; 
of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be 
thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of 
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, where- 
with he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done de- 



The Shipwreck. 



285 



spite unto the Spirit of grace " (Heb. x. 26-29). The class 
here spoken of had (1) an experimental knowledge of 
the truth; (2) they sin uuillfully; (3) then comes a certain 
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation; (4) 
this fiery indignation shall devour the adversaries. 
Who are those adversaries? (5) They are those who counted 
the blood of the covenant, wherewith they were sanc- 
tified, an unholy thing. Now, from this scripture, is i* 
not clear that those who have been sanctified may sin, fall, 
and be devoured f 

Baptist I must confess that it looks so. It seems that 
you are about to prove that we Baptists are wrong on the 
question of apostasy; but what will you do with Matthew 
vii. 23, " Then will I profess unto them, 1 never knew you?" 
Remember, this is what Jesus will say to all who are lost 
in the last day; and don't you know that if any of them 
had ever been his children he had known them? But he 
says, "I never Jcneiv you!' 

Methodist. In some sense Christ knows everybody and 
every thing. There must be a certain sense in which these 
words are to be understood. Now remember, this language 
will be used when Jesus is deciding who are and who are 
not entitled to eternal life in the last day. Will this de- 
cision be based on any one act of a man's life, or will it be 
based on his life as a whole? 

Baptist Q! on his life as a whole, of course. 
Methodist. Very well. Now it is not only stated in the 
Bible that men are "justified by faith," but it is also stated, 
" The just shall live by faith, but if any man draiv back, my 
soul shall have no pleasure in him" (Heb. x. 38). Notice 
also that final salvation is promised to none except those 
who " hold out faithful to the end " (Matt. xxiv. 13). " For 
we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of 
our confidence steadfast unto the end " (Heb. iii. 14). So it 



286 



The Shipwreck. 



is clear that Christ's final decision will be based on the 
whole of life. But some " draw back " before they reach the 
end; others — as Hymeneus and Alexander — "make ship- 
wreck of the faith.'' Hence the charge, "Cast not away 
therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of re- 
ward" (Heb. x. 35). But why charge a man to not cast a 
thing away when it would be impossible for him to cast it 
away ? 

Baptist. Y-e-s; but you have not answered my question. 

Methodist. If the promise of final salvation is to none ex- 
cept those who endure to the end, as we have seen, and at 
the final judgment a vast number stand before the Judge, 
who, like the Galatians, " began in the Spirit " (Gal. iii. 
3), and "did run well" for a time, but "fell from grace" 
(Gal. v. 4) ; or, like Hymeneus and Alexander, " made 
shipwreck of the faith;" or, like Judas, "by transgression 
fell;" or, like others, who "drew back'' — cannot Jesus 
truthfully say to them, "As those complying with the con- 
ditions entitling you to final salvation, I never knew you f " 

Baptist. W-e-1-1, that does not seem quite clear to me. 
Can you make it plainer by an illustration ? 

Methodist. In explaining the parable of the sower, Jesus 
days : " They on the rock are they which, when they hear, 
receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which 
for awhile believe and in time of temptation fall away. 
And that which fell among thorns are they which, when 
they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and 
riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to per- 
fection " (Luke viii. 13, 14). Verses 6 and 7 show that 
the seed on the rock, and those among the thorns, " sprung 
up." Notice, (1) The seed sown on the rock, and those 
sown among thorns, were the same kind as those sown in 
good ground. (2) They "sprung up" just the same as 
those in the good ground. (3) We find no difierence in 



The Shipwreck. 



287 



the sowing, no difference in the seed sown, no difference 
in the springing up; but after they were up one class 
"believed for a time, and then "fell away;" another class 
got mixed up with cares, pleasures, and riches of this world, 
and were choked out; while another class on good ground 
brought forth fruit. Xow, if the springing up of the seed 
in this parable does not represent conversion, what does it 
represent? And if it represents conversion, were not all 
the classes referred to converted alike? After being con- 
verted alike, did not two classes fall from grace? 

Baptist. W-e-1-1, I don't know just now; but I asked you 
to give me an illustration. 

Methodist, Very well. Suppose you are placed as door- 
keeper at a meeting of a farmers' club, with instruction to 
admit no one who is not a farmer. A man comes and asks 
to be admitted. You know him well. He always prepares 
his ground well every spring, and plants the very best seed- 
corn. It comes up well ; he gives it one good plowing, and then 
goes fishing, squirrel-hunting, and spends much of his time 
playing at games, and the weeds choke out his corn, and he 
does not make one ear. Will you admit him? 

Baptist. Certainly not. 

Methodist. Why not? He planted good seed-corn; it 
came up well, and he gave it one good plowing. Why not 
admit him? 

Baptist. Because he did not bring any fruit to perfection. 
I understand a farmer to be one who labors until something 
is brought to perfection through his labor. 

Methodist. Very well. Could you not say to him, "As a 
farmer, I never knew you?" 

Baptist. Yes, I think I could. Now, I must say that it 
seems to me we Baptists are all wrong on this great subject 
of apostasy. I must give it up. You have shown (1) that 
if the Baptist doctrine be true, Methodists can lose nothing 



288 



The Bhipwreck. 



by believing in the possibility of apostasy ; (2) that if the 
Baptist doctrine be false, we are in great danger of losing 
soul and body forever; (3) that the Methodists are on the 
safe side of this question ; (4) that the Baptists are on the 
unsafe side, and can gain nothing, even though their doc- 
trine be true ; (5) that if converted people are as safe as if 
they were in heaven, we should as w T ell preach to angels 
as to converted people; (6) that if a man really believes 
he cannot fall, he will be more likely to yield to temptation 
than he w T ould if he believed there was danger ; (7) that if 
the wills and shalls of God prove that one who now be- 
lieves can never fall, they also prove that one who is now 
an unbeliever can never be saved ; (8) that the persever- 
ance of the saints is conditional, and that the wrath of God 
comes on all of his children who disregard the conditions; 
(9) that those who sin against God shall be blotted out of 
his book; (10) that Christians are branches of Christ; (11) 
that if they become unfruitful, they will be cut off from 
Christ, as an unfruitful branch is cut off from a vine; (12) 
that the Galatians fell from grace; (13) that the eighth 
chapter of Romans has been very wrongly construed by the 
Baptists; (14) that some of God's children apostatized so 
shamefully that a greedy dog and a filthy sow were used to 
illustrate their apostasy; (15) that the angels that sinned 
were cast down to hell; (16) that the saints will be equal 
to the angels when they get to heaven; (17) that if angels 
can fall, saints can fall when they get to heaven ; (18) 
that if saints cannot fall while on earth, but can fall when 
they get to heaven, it will be a misfortune to get to heaven ; 
(19) that Adam was a son of God, yet he fell; (20) that 
Judas was an ordained preacher, yet he fell; (21) that 
Hymeneus and Alexander put away a good conscience, and 
made shipreck of the faith ; (22) that all — 

Methodist That will do. I might give you much more 



The Shipwreck. 



289 



on this subject, but as you are satisfied, and as the script- 
ures already given abundantly prove the possibility of 
apostasy, it would be waste of time to pursue the subject 
farther. But if you think of another text that the Baptists 
rely on in support of their doctrine, I will be glad to no- 
tice it. 

Baptist. I have several passages that we use sometimes, 
but only one that I think would be likely to mislead any 
one on the subject, and that is 1 John iii. 9: " Whosoever 
is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth 
in him; and he cannot sin because he is born of God." 
But I see conditions expressed in this verse: (1) Not was 
born, but is bom of God; (2) not seed was in him, but seed 
remaineth in him; (3) not cannot sin because he was bom, 
but because he is born of God. It now* seems clear to me 
that this text means about this. While a Christian is wholly 
under the influence of the new birth, wholly " walking after 
the Spirit, ' as Paul puts it (Bom. viii. 1), he does not, 
cannot sin. But I cannot believe that the apostle means 
that one who is noiv under the influence of the new birth 
may not at some time in the future sin, and even sin unto 
death ; for in this same epistle, and to the same persons, he says : 
" If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, 
he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not 
unto death. There is a sin unto death ; I do not say that 
he shall pray for that" (1 John v. 16). I notice, (1) that 
the one who might sin was "a brother; (2) that he might 
u sin unto death. (3) This must mean spiritual death, for 
all will die natural deaths whether they sin or not. 

Methodist. I think you are correct. Farewell! Be 
careful and do not apostatize, and when we meet again we 
may have a little talk on close communion. 
19 



290 



The Shipwreck. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Baptist. Well, Brother Methodist, we meet again ; and 1 
am glad to see you. I have thought much on the subject 
of apostasy since we parted, and my mind is fully settled, 
so I am ready to hear you on close communion. 

Methodist. Very well; but before we discuss that subject, 
tell me just what you believe on the subject of apostasy. 

Baptist. After looking carefully over all the arguments 
you made, I am thoroughly convinced that you sustained 
by the Bible the doctrine of apostasy as taught by the 
Methodists. I also notice that in his teachings Jesus very 
often used natural things to illustrate spiritual things, and 
I began to look around for something* in nature to illustrate 
the Baptist doctrine of the unconditional perseverance of 
the saints, and to my surprise, I could find nothing in nat- 
ure that would illustrate it. 

Methodist Did you find any thing that would illustrate 
apostasy ? 

Baptist. O yes. A farmer plants his corn, and says : <k My 
crib is as good as full of corn now." Well, that is so if he 
cultivates faithfully, and if the season is suitable ; but if he 
does not work, and if a drought comes, his crop fails. An- 
other, having supplies sufficient for all the present wants of 
his family, says: " Once enough, always enough." Well, 
that is true if he uses the means to add to his stock of sup- 
plies as fast as his family consumes; but if lie does not, his 
supplies will fail, and starvation will follow. Another eats 
a full meal, and says: " Once full, always full — not possible 
for me to perish with hunger." That is true if he contin- 
ues to eat regular meals, and a sufficient quantity to supply 
the demands of the body ; but if he ceases to eat, he will die 
of hunger as sure as if he had never had a full meal in all 
his life. The fact is, there are but few things in nature that 
will not illustrate apostasy. All of our temporal interests 



The Shipwreck. 



291 



must be faithfully looked after, or they will fail, and I see 
no reason why it may not be so in spiritual matters. It 
now seems to me that soon after the fall of man God laid 
down the conditions on which our eternal salyation is sus- 
pended: "If thou cloest well, shall thou not be accepted? 
and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door" (Gen. iv. 7). 
So it seems that man's eternal salvation hangs on an if, and 
that if always refers to man's own conduct. 

Methodist. Just so, and we would do well to ever pray, 
"Give us this day our daily bread" (Matt. vi. 11). We 
should also heed these words: " Son, go work to-day in my 
vineyard " (Matt. xxi. 28). " Wherefore the rather, breth- 
ren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure ; for 
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall " (2 Peter i. 10). But 
we will now take up the subject of Close Communion. 
On what grounds do you claim the right to exclude all 
from the Lord's-table except Baptists? 

Baptist. Well, in the first place, we claim that there is 
but one true Church, and that is the Baptist Church. We 
also claim that no one can belong to the true Church with- 
out immersion, and as you Methodists have not been im- 
mersed, you are not members of the true Church, and there- 
fore we cannot allow you to take the Supper of the Lord 
with us, nor can we take it with you ; so you see we practice 
close baptism, and not close communion, as we are accused 
of doing. 

Methodist Close baptism, you say? The Campbellites 
Have all been immersed. Do you Baptists commune with 
them ? 

Baptist. Of course we do not. You see they are not in the 
succession, and therefore they have not been immersed by 
proper authority. 

Methodist. In the succession? What do you mea^ by 
that? 



292 



The Shipwreck. 



Baptist O we believe in a regular baptismal succession 
from John the Baptist to the present day, and those who 
are not in that succession have never been immersed by 
proper authority, and therefore are not entitled to the sac- 
rament of the Lord's Supper. 

Methodist. Please explain this baptismal succession. 

Baptist Why, John baptized certain persons, and they 
baptized others, and so on down till immersion came to us 
in an unbroken chain from John. 

Methodist Now I understand you. Please tell me who 
baptized you. 

Baptist I was immersed by old Brother B. 

Methodist Very well ; who immersed old Brother B. ? 

Baptist He said he was immersed by old Brother N. 

Methodist All right; but who baptized Brother N.? 

Baptist W-e-1-1 — I do n't know. I suppose Brother B. 
could have told me, but I did not ask him, and as Brothers 
B. and N. are dead, I — w-e-1-1 — 

Methodist And you are in the regular succession from 
John, you say ; and can't trace your immersion back two 
generations? If you undertake to trace it more than eight- 
een hundred years, back to John, how would you make it? 
In fact, do n't you get uneasy sometimes for fear you do not 
belong to the true Church f 

Baptist. I see you want to get up a quibble, and I do not 
intend to be driven from my position. We hold to close 
baptism, and it is slander to accuse us of holding to close 
communion. 

Methodist. Now, I defy you or any other Baptist to trace 
your immersion back three hundred years in a regular 
chain, with certainty. Now, there are members in the 
Methodist Church who once belonged to the Baptist Church 
and were baptized by Baptist ministers. Will you allow 
them to commune with you ? 



The Shipwreck. 



293 



Baptist W-e-1-1 — no — they have been inconsistent — they — 

Methodist Yes, I see. They just do n't belong to the Bap- 
tist Church. That is the trouble. " Close baptism/' you say? 
No, sir; it is close communion straight out, and nothing 
else. How foolish it is to talk about " baptismal success 
sion," " close baptism," and the like! Suppose you come to 
my house, and in the yard you see a nice grape-vine full of 
ripe grapes. You say: " I would like to taste your grapes, 
and see how they compare with mine. I have a nice vine 
which bears fine grapes." I ask, " Where did you get your 
vine?" You tell me that a neighbor gave it to you, and 
that you know nothing of its history. I then say: " Well, 
sir, you have no true grape-vine. My vine came down in 
a regular succession from the vineyard which Is oak planted 
just after tke flood (Gen. ix. 20), and tkere are no true 
grape-vines except suck as are in regular succession from 
Noah's vineyard, and therefore I cannot allow you to eat 
grapes from my vine; neither can I eat them from your 
vine. I like you as a neighbor, but we can't eat grapes to- 
gether." How would that suit you ? 

Baptist I should think you were acting very foolishly. I 
think we should judge vines by the fruit they bear, and not 
by where they came from. 

Methodist Just so. " By their fruits ye shall know them " 
(Matt. vii. 20). That is what Jesus says about it; but you 
Baptists talk about u baptismal succession," " Have you 
been immersed ? and if you have, were you immersed by a 
Baptist minister?" Just such nonsense! Where did you 
learn that the right to the communion of the Lord's Sup- 
per depended on immersion, succession, or any such thing? 
Give me chapter and verse, will you ? 

Baptist. W-e-1-1 — I do not know that the Bible says any 
such thing; but that is the teaching of the Baptist Church, 
and we must be governed by it. 



294: 



The Shipwreck. 



Methodist Well, well! That is the teaching of the only 
true Church in the world, and yet the Bible says not one 
word about it! It must be a Baptist table you are talking 
about. It certainly cannot be the Lord's-table. 

Baptist. Xo, indeed ; it is the Lord's-table, b-u-t — 

Methodist. But you Baptists have assumed the right to 
say who shall eat and drink at the Lord's-table. 

Baptist. W-e-1-1, no. Of course all of the Lord's children 
have a right to eat and drink at his table, if they have 
been immersed by a Baptist minister. 

Methodist. Do you think the Lord has no children but 
those who have been immersed by Baptist ministers? 

Baptist. Of course there are good Christians in the Meth- 
odist and other Churches. " For ye are all the children of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus " (Gal. iii. 26). And, "Ye are 
all one in Christ Jesus " (verse 28). 

Methodist. That is the way the Bible has it, but you 
Baptists seem to have it about this way : " Ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus by immersion, and that by a Baptist minister." 
What presumption ! Suppose a father makes a feast for his 
children. On the set day all the children assemble at 
their father's house. Just as dinner is ready, one of the 
sons says to his brothers and sisters, " Before we eat, I must 
know by what mode of conveyance you all came here." 
They all answer, " We came in our buggies." He says, " I 
came in my buggy too, but how did you cross the river?" 
They all say, " We came over in a ferry-boat." He then 
says : " You are not qualified to eat with me. True, you 
are the children of my father, but you crossed the river in 
a boat, and I forded it ; therefore we cannot eat together. I 
am the only child of my father who has a right at this table, 
and you must all stand back. You can see me eat if you 
like, but you cannot eat with me." What would you think 
of his conduct? 



The Shipwreck. 



295 



Baptist. I should think he was treating his brothers and 
sisters with great disrespect, and that he was very presumpt- 
uous and disrespectful to his father in assuming authority 
over his table and driving his children from it. 

Methodist. Just so ; and how much better are you doing 
when you sit in judgment on God's children, and presume 
to say who shall and who shall not commune at his table, 
when God has not given you one word of such authority? 

Baptist Do you hold that the Bible opposes the teaching 
of the Baptist Church on this subject? 

Methodist. Certainly I do, The Bible teaching is: "Let 
a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, 
and drink of that cup" (1 Cor xi. 28). The teaching of 
the Baptist Church is: " Let the Baptists examine him, and, 
no matter how pure and good he is, if he has not been im- 
mersed by a Baptist minister, do rit let him eat and drink" 
What a marked difference ! What presumption ! 

Baptist, But we are afraid unworthy persons will com- 
mune. 

Methodist. Suppose they do. If you read them the word 
of God on the subject, and some unworthy persons do com- 
mune, who is responsible for it? " For he that eateth and 
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to 
himself" (1 Cor. xi. 29). So you have mistaken the whole 
matter. I think you have great need to pray David's 
prayer (Ps. xix. 13) : " Keep back thy servaut also from 
presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over ine." 
It does seem that in your communion presumptuous sins 
have dominion over you Baptists. 

Baptist. Well, to tell you the truth, I must say I begin 
to doubt the right of the Baptist Church to exclude from 
the communion members of other Churches who are just as 
faithful in all Christian duties as our own members are. I 
know we always like them to help us in our revivals, and 



296 



The Shipwreck. 



I have often felt badly when Methodists and others had 
worked faithfully in our meetings all the week, and at the 
close we had the communion, and they had to stand back 
— good enough to instruct mourners in a Baptist Church, 
to sing, pray, and even preach for us, but not good enough 
to commune with us. Somehow I always felt like apologiz- 
ing to them. 

Methodist. I do not wonder. Suppose I should invite 
you to assist me in harvesting my wheat. You enter my field 
with me early in the morning, and side by side we cut the 
grain until noon. The bell rings for dinner. I turn to 
you and say : " I am truly obliged for your labor, and am 
sorry that I cannot invite you to take dinner with me ; but 
I have a family rule which excludes you from my table. I 
would be glad to have your services again this evening." 
Do you think you would like that? 

Baptist. I am very sure I would not cut wheat for you 
any more. I shall never practice close communion again, 
for what we have been calling close baptism is certainly 
close communion. There is too much of the Pharisaic 
spirit of "I am holier than thou" in close communion to 
be tolerated by the humble followers of Jesus. 

Methodist. I think so. Now let me give you one more 
text of scripture which will show that Baptists and all 
others are positively forbidden to judge men in this matter. 
Just after Paul tells the Corinthians that a man should ex- 
amine himself, and throws all the responsibility on the man 
who communes, and not on him who administers the sacra- 
ment, he adds: "If we would judge ourselves, we should not 
be judged " (1 Cor. xi. 31). Now, if we should not be judged, 
is it not plain that the Baptists violate the teaching of the 
apostle when they exclude any of God's children from his 
table? 

Baptist. I agree with you fully ; but the Baptists have 



The Shipwreck. 



297 



always had a great horror of communing with unworthy per- 
sons. If they were at the Lord's-table, and were certain that 
some unworthy person was by their side, they hold it to be 
their duty to leave the table at once ; but Paul seems to 
look at it in quite a different light. 

Methodist So he does. Let me give you one more pas- 
sage from God's word: " Now there was a day when the 
sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, 
and Satan came also among them" (Job i. 6). Now sup- 
pose the sons of God had said, "Horrors! here is Satan 
among us; we must get aivay" and had deserted the place 
of worship. What then ? Do n't you suppose that Satan 
still presents himself with the sons of God, and that he is 
even among the Baptists in their communion, and all others 
who commune ? 

Bajitist. I suppose he is, for "the devil, as a roaring lion, 
walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter v. 
8). So if we run from every place where there is some un- 
worthy being, I suppose we shall be running all the time, 
and have no time for worship. Hereafter I shall be con- 
tent to " examine myself," and will remember that to my 
" own Master I must stand or fall." I give up all the nar- 
rowness and selfishness that foster close communion, and 
am willing to commune with all lovers of Jesus. If any 
are unworthy I do not see how immersion at the hands of 
a Baptist minister could make them worthy. 

Methodist. Amen. Now read Mr. Spurgeon on close 
communion. He presents the absurdity of close commun- 
ion by the following anecdote: "Dr. Steadman, of Brad- 
ford College, was a very strict Baptist. One day he 
preached for some Independents, and there was to be a 
communion. He prayed earnestly that the Lord would 
vouchsafe his presence to the brethren around his table. As 
he was putting on his great-coat to go home, one of the 



298 



The Shipwreck. 



deacons said: 'Doctor, you will stop with us to the com- 
munion, will you not?" 'Well, my dear brother." he said, 
' it is not want of love, but, you see, it would compromise my 
principles. I am a strict Baptist, and I could not commune 
with you who have not been baptized. Do not think it is 
any want of love, but it is only out of respect for my prin- 
ciples.' 'CM' said the deacon, 'it is not your principles; 
because what did you pray for, Doctor? You prayed 
your Master, the Lord Jesus, to come to our table; and if. 
according to your principles, it is wrong to go there, you 
should not ask your Master to come where you must not go 
yourself; but if you believe that our Lord and Master will 
come to the table, surely where the Master is it cannot be 
wrong for the servant to be.' The deacon's reasoning ap- 
pears to me very sound,' 5 added Mr. Spurgeon. 



THE RIGHT OF A SINNER TO PRAY 
FOR PARDON. 

(299) 



CHAPTEB VIII. 

The Eight of a Christian to Peay for a Sinner, 
and the Eight of a Sinner to Pray for Him- 
self. 

" Behold, he prayeth." (Acts ix. 11.) 

On page 179 of " Gospel Plan of Salvation," by 
Elder T. W. Brents, the right of a sinner to pray, and 
be prayed for, in order to the forgiveness of sins, is 
boldly denied; and the Doctor says of those who teach 
otherwise, and who invite penitents to the altar: 
"They could not find authority in the Word of God 
for their manner of teaching, if the salvation of the 
world depended on it!" As Mr. Brents uttered the 
sentiments of the whole Church which he represents, 
and as the eternal happiness of many souls may be 
in jeopardy just here, we deem it important carefully 
to examine the subject in the light of Scripture and 
reason. 

We know of no civilized nation whose subjects are 
by law prohibited the right of petition to the chief 
justice of the nation. God is King of kings and 
Lord of lords, the merciful Euler of the universe. 
Every instinct of our nature revolts at the idea that 
he should be less merciful than earthly kings and 
rulers. The text is the language of God, addressed 
to a disciple, and spoken of the "chief of sinners," 
a man who had been "breathing out threatening and 
slaughter against the disciples of the Lord." In 
his journey to Damascus, thirsting for the blood of 
any who might confess the name of Jesus, he was 
deeply convicted of sin, not by an eloquent sermon 

(301) 



302 



The Eight to Pray. 



from one of the apostles, bat by a great light from 
heaven, and the voice of Jesus saying unto him: 
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" The sec- 
ond word he uttered was a prayer: "Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do?" All admit that sinners have a 
right to ask what they must do, but many deny that 
that they have a right to pray for pardon. Remem- 
ber, it was three days (verse 8) after his conviction 
before Ananias was told to go to Saul; and he was still 
praying^ for "Behold, he prayed three days ago." 
Xotso! "Behold, he prayeth " While I address you, 
Ananias, Saul is praying. Three days before, he 
asked: "'What wilt thou have me to do?" and was 
told to go into Damascus, where it should be told 
him what he must do. Is it reasonable that his prayer 
for three days was nothing but " What wilt thou have 
me to do?" after his prayer had been answered? It 
is worthy of note that God gave Ananias no other 
reason why he would have him go to Saul than the 
text until after Ananias objected to going; then said 
the Lord: "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto 
me;" not "will be a chosen vessel when you go and 
baj^tize him! " but he "is a chosen vessel! " This was 
not said of him until he had fasted and prayed three 
days. Hear Paul: "I obtained mercy, because I did 
it ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Tim. i. 13.) To obtain 
is to get by effort. Paul had the promise. "Ask. and 
ye shall receive; " and as he obtained mercy, we think 
it reasonable he asked for it. 

We will first consider whether a Christian has the 
right to pray for the pardon of a sinner. This is a 
question we think can be fully settled by the Bible; 
therefore, we go at once "to the law and to the testi- 



The Eight to Pray. 



303 



raoiiy." "And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray 
for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die 
not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to 
ask us a king." (1 Sarn. xii. 19. ) The sin of asking 
a king consisted in rejecting God (chap. viii. 7), and 
preferring a man to reign over them; which was, in- 
deed, exceedingly wicked. But when it is remem- 
bered that this was "added to all their sins," it may 
well be said they were desperately wicked. In this 
state they craved the prophet's prayer in their behalf. 
They acknowledged they deserved death, and knew 
they would suffer that penalty unless they were par- 
doned; hence they said: "Pray for thy servants, . . . 
that we die not." Had Samuel been like some of our 
modern teachers, he must have said: " I could not 
find authority in the word of God for so doing, if the 
salvation of the world depended on it." It is quite 
plain that if Samuel had no right to pray for those 
sinners it would have been ivicked in him to pray for 
them. Sin consists in doing what we have no right 
to do. Hear the prophet: "Moreover as for me, God 
forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing 
to pray for you." (Verse 23.) While he faithfully 
taught the people their duty, and pointed out to them 
the good and the right way, he felt that he could not 
withhold his prayers for this wicked people without 
sinning against God. Happy for us all if we felt 
more keenly the force of this truth. It is said: "In 
the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word 
be established." So we will add the testimony of 
the Saviour and St. Paul to that of Samuel, and 
mark how beautifully they corroborate each other. 
"Pray for thera which despitefully use you, and perse- 



30i 



The Eight to Pray. 



cute you." (Matt. v. 44.) This was Christ's com- 
mand to his disciples, and must have been given be- 
fore the idea that a Christian had no right to pray 
for a sinner had birth. Surely few sinners can be 
more wicked than those who despitef ully use and per- 
secute the followers of Jesus! Yet it would be a 
gross neglect of duty, therefore a grievous sin, for any 
Christian to cease praying for the vilest persecutors 
of God's Church! How does the doctrine of our 
modern teachers accord with the teaching of Jesus 
on this point? '*I exhort therefore, that, first of all, 
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of 
thanks, be made for all men/' (1 Tim. ii. 1.) Here 
the apostle lays it down as the first duty of the chil- 
dren of God to pray in the most earnest and humble 
manner for all men. If we heed his exhortation, we 
will pray for thieves, murderers, drunkards, and all 
classes of sinners; unless we can show that all men 
have been born of the Spirit, and are in favor with 
God. "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by 
prayer and fasting." (Matt. xvii. 21. ) If it be wrong 
for a Christian to pray for sinners, and wicked for 
sinners to pray for themselves, then here is a class of 
poor sinners who must be saved with the devil in 
them, or damned without a remedy. "Goeth not out 
but by prayer and fasting." Baptism can not remove 
him; confession can not; nothing can but prayer and 
fasting. The Saviour absolutely excludes everything 
else as a means of bringing this kind of a devil forth 
from the inner man, but prayer and fasting. " Com- 
eth forth by nothing else." We now give you an ex- 
ample or two from the Bible, where the best of men 
have prayed for the pardon of the very worst of sin- 



The Eight to Pray. 



305 



ners without any connection with baptism, or any oth- 
er ordinance of the Church: "Then said Jesus, Fa- 
ther, forgive them, for they know not what they do." 
(Luke xxiii. 34) The dying words and example of 
our blessed Master are so precious to his servants 
that it is a matter of great astonishment to us how 
any one professing to teach the way of truth to dying 
mortals could ignore and antagonize this glorious ex- 
ample of Jesus in praying for the pardon of the worst 
of men. Are we not safe in doing as Jesus did? Did 
Jesus do that for which he could not find authority 
in the Bible if the salvation of the world depended 
on it? 

Once more. " He kneeled down, and cried with a 
loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." 
(Acts vii. 60.) This was the last prayer of the first 
Christian martyr. Shall we be taught that the Sa- 
viour of the world and St. Stephen, one of his most 
faithful followers, both, with their dying breath, set 
us an example which it is altogether improper for us 
to follow? Are we to withhold our prayers from 
those of our fellow beings who need them most? 
Sooner let us ignore the teaching of all who are so 
prone to undervalue prayer and set a limit to it that 
is not intimated in the word of life! He " cried with 
a loud voice " — indicative of his earnestness of spirit 
when praying for his murderers. Reader, do you 
think it safe to follow the example of Jesus and of 
his martyr in this matter? I know you do. Ponder 
well. Some of you have sinful children, and it is of 
great importance to you to know whether or not it is 
your privilege and duty to ask your Heavenly Father 
to forgive them. I only wish the Church were more 
20 



306 



The Eight to Peay. 



fully aroused to her duty in this matter! Do you 
know of a civilized nation whose king or president is 
so unreasonable and tyrannical as not to allow his 
faithful subjects to petition him in behalf of his un- 
faithful and rebellious subjects? Those who make 
God less reasonable and merciful than earthly rulers 
fly in the face of Scripture and reason. 

We will now consider the second question: "Has a 
sinner the right to pray for himself?" It is argued 
by some that sinners are not God's subjects, and 
therefore have no right to petition him for pardon 
any more than an Englishman has the right to peti- 
tion the President of the United States for pardon 
when he has offended against the law of England. 
This is an inapt illustration. As the power of our 
President is limited to the United States, and as the 
Englishman was born out of the dominion, of course 
the President has no authority to pardon in the 
above case. But where is the sinner who was born 
out of the dominion of God? "The earth is the 
Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they 
that dwell therein." (Ps. xxiv. 1.) The dominion 
of men is limited; but God ruleth in the kingdom 
of men (Dan. iv. 17), even over all the kingdoms 
of the heathen (2 Chron. xx. 6). It requires no 
effort to see that those who have resorted to the 
illustration fail to sustain their point. All who are 
born in the United States are in the jurisdiction of 
our President, and all have equal right to petition. 
All who are born in the world are under God's gov- 
ernment, and have the right to petition him. Many 
of God's subjects are very stubborn and disobedient, 
resembling in this respect the subjects of the United 



The Eight to Pray. 



307 



States; but this, instead of annulling the right to 
petition, only makes it more necessary. We now in- 
vite attention to a few passages of Scripture: "And 
the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so 
much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his 
breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." 
(Luke xviii. 13.) Now, if this sinner had no right to 
pray, every prayer he uttered only aggravated his 
guilt; and, so far from obtaining justification by this 
means, his soul would have been brought into sorer 
condemnation. How did Jesus regard this prayer? 
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, 
rather than the other: for every one that exalteth 
himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth him- 
self shall be exalted." (Terse 14.) Here the rule 
by which a humble, praying sinner is exalted is as 
universal as that by which the self-righteous Phar- 
isee is abased. Justify, "to pardon, to absolve." 
(Webster.) Surely Jesus would not have pardoned 
this sinner in doing what he had no right to do. 
We are asked: "Where is any command for a sinner 
to pray?" This question is often asked with much 
earnestness. We give a few passages from the Old 
Testament and a few from the New: "Seek ye the 
Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while 
he is near." (Isa. lv. 6.) Calling upon the Lord is 
praying to him. All who call upon him have the 
promise of salvation. " For the same Lord over all 
is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
(Rom. x. 12, 13.) Cc Whosoever" certainly includes 
all who pray, saint or sinner. In the Sermon on 
the Mount, when Jesus was speaking to the multi- 



308 



The Eight to Pray. 



tude, he said: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, 
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto 
you: for every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that 
seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall 
be opened." (Matt. vii. 7, 8.) "Ask" is a command. 
"Every one" surely includes sinners. "Men ought 
always to pray, and not to faint." (Luke xviii. 1.) 
This language is general — "men." There is not the 
slightest intimation that the baptized only have a 
right to pray. "And men shall worship him, every 
one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen." 
(Zeph. ii. 11.) "Shall worship" is a command. 
"Every one," " all the isles of the heathen," includes 
sinners of all grades. Worshiping God is praying 
to him. "Then came she and worshiped him, say- 
ing, Lord, help me." (Matt. xv. '25.) We might 
add similar passages, but the above are sufficient to 
satisfy unprejudiced minds. Those who will reject 
these passages because they oppose their theory 
could easily set aside a hundred others of the same 
import. "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, 
and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart 
may be forgiven thee, for I perceive thou art in the 
gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." ( Acts 
viii. 22, 23.) Simon had been baptized; but at the 
time the above passage was addressed to him he was 
"in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniq- 
uity," and Peter commanded him to repent and 
pray. No one can doubt that Simon was in a 
wretched state of sin; neither can it be doubted 
Peter commanded him to pray, and that he called on 
Peter to pray for him. In some Churches it is com- 
mon for ministers to command sinners to pray, even 



The Eight to Peay. 



309 



nowadays; and not ^infrequently sinners ask minis- 
ters to pray for them; but such ministers must en- 
dure many scoffs and much ridicule from those who 
differ from Peter in their manner of instructing sin- 
ners. Says an objector, " Simon had been baptized 
and made a Christian, but apostatized when he of- 
fered Peter money for the power to impart the Holy 
Ghost by laying on hands." This is a common ob- 
jection we have often heard. If Simon had been a 
Christian, he had been made one without the Holy 
Ghost, for he certainly did not possess the spirit of 
Christ. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his." (Horn, viii. 9. ) "Where does our 
objector get his idea that Simon had been a Chris- 
tian and apostatized? Certainly not from the Bible. 
Let us admit for a moment that his objection is 
valid, and see if his theory would be strengthened 
thereby. t " When the unclean spirit is gone out of 
a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, 
and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return unto 
my house from whence I came out; and when he is 
come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 
Then goeth he, and taketh with him seven other 
spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and 
dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse 
than the first." (Matt. xii. 43-45.) Xow, if Simon 
had been a Christian, the unclean spirit had certain- 
ly gone out of him. And if he apostatized, that 
same unclean spirit, accompanied by seven others 
more wicked than himself, entered into him, and his 
last state was worse than his first — even more than 
seven times worse! for the seven spirits were more 
wicked than the one which first went out of him. 



310 



The Eight to Pray. 



Then it is plain that if Simon had no right to pray 
before he became a Christian, he had eight times less 
right to pray after he apostatized. Either horn of 
this dilemma is a goad in the heart of the theory 
which denies a sinner the right to pray. Cornelius 
was a devout man, "one that feared God with all his 
house, which gave much alms to the people, and 
prayed to God always." (Acts x. 2. ) His prayers and 
alms came up as a "memorial before God." (Verse 
4.) Those who teach that a sinner has no right 
to pray teach that all rneii are sinners who have not 
been immersed. Cornelius had never been im- 
mersed; hence, if he was a Christian, he was made 
so without immersion; and if he was a sinner, he 
had no right to pray (according to some); yet he did 
pray, and his prayers were answered! Never did 
man obtain an answer to prayer which was of more 
importance to the Gentile world than was the answer 
to Cornelius' prayers. In answer to his prayer, 
Peter was sent for, and the kingdom of Christ was 
opened to the Gentile world. The Jews were made 
to understand that "God was no respecter of per- 
sons." Cornelius and his friends heard words where- 
by they might be saved. They received the Holy 
Ghost before water-baptism was mentioned to them 
(so far as the record shows), and we dare not go be- 
yond that. All of this came about, too, in answer to 
the prayers of a devout man who had never been 
immersed. 

An example or two of sinners having obtained an- 
swers to their prayers, added to the above, will place 
the matter of a sinner's right to pray beyond contro- 
versy, if we will allow the question settled by the 



The Eight to Pray. 



311 



Bible. The thief on the cross said unto Jesus : " Lord, 
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." 
Jesus said unto him: " Verily I say unto thee, To-day 
shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke xxiii. 42, 
43. ) Immersion was out of the question in this case. 
A guilty sinner prayed to a gracious Saviour, and ob- 
tained salvation without any Church ordinance what- 
ever. I have heard about three objections urged 
against the case of the thief having any bearing on 
the question. One urges that this is an extreme case, 
and therefore should not have a bearing on sinners 
generally. I confess to an inability to see the valid- 
ity of this objection, unless it is intended to teach that 
it will not do for sinners to pray directly to God for 
salvation except in extreme cases! It is said that the 
law of pardon had not been given then, and that J e- 
sus saved the thief regardless of law! Is it possible 
that the world had been four thousand years without 
a law of pardon? After Isaiah commanded sinners 
to call upon God he said: "Let the wicked forsake 
his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and 
let him return unto th : Lord, and he will have mercy 
upon him; and to our U od, for he will abundantly 
pardon." (Isa. lv. 7.) David understood this law. 
"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lov- 
ing-kindness: according to the multitude of thy ten- 
der mercies blot out my transgressions." (Ps. li. 1.) 
"Blot out all mine iniquities." (Verse 9.) Surely 
Jesus was not reduced to the necessity of disregard- 
ing law to save the thief! Some say: "Paradise means 
the grave, and it is not certain that the thief was 
saved at all." "To-day shalt thou be with me in the 
grave!" What consolation to a dying sinner! "I 



312 



The Eight to Pray. 



knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . . how 
that he was caught np into paradise [the grave], and 
heard unspeakable words." (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4) We 
have been taught that the grave was a place of quiet. 

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the 
tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise 
[gravely of God!" (Rev. ii. 7.) Our common sense 
revolts at such nonsense! It is the privilege of all 
men, as well as the duty of all men, to call upon God. 
"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not 
known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not 
called upon thy name." (Ps. lxxix. 6; see also Jer. 
x. 25. ) God does not pour out his wrath upon men 
for neglecting what is not their duty, hence such as 
fail to pray to God neglect their duty ! Says an object- 
or, " He that turneth away his ear from hearing the 
law, even his prayer shall be abomination." (Pro v. 
xxviii. 9.) Just so with all men, whether baptized or 
unbaptized! All prayers must be offered in accord- 
ance with God's ivill, in order to be accepted of him. 
No man can pray an acceptable prayer to God while 
it is the purpose of his heart to violate the teaching 
of the sacred volume. 

In order that our prayers may receive an answer 
from God, we must offer them with a sincere purpose 
to forsake the way of sin and serve God in spirit and 
in truth. It is folly for a sinner to call upon God 
for pardon for any sin while he retains a secret in- 
tention to commit the same sin again. It is only 
those who confess and forsake their sins who may 
hope for pardon; and they may hope for it only on 
the condition that they are truly penitent for their 
sins, and make their prayer in faith, " nothing waver- 



The Right to Pjeiay. 



313 



ing." " What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, 
" believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." 
(Mark xi. 24.) The apostle Paul cautions us on this 
point: "I will therefore that men pray everywhere, 
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." 
(1 Tim. ii. 8.) Have no purpose to wrong your fel- 
low man, nor give place for a moment to wrath. We 
may learn here that our prayers must be offered with- 
out doubting. All men who live anywhere have a 
right to pray. Find no man, who lives nowhere, and 
he has no right to pray. "The prayer of the wicked 
prevaileth not." We have often heard this quoted as 
Scripture, but no such language is to be found in the 
Bible. "Now we know that God heareth not sinners." 
(John ix. 31.) This passage is generally referred to 
by those who deny that a sinner has a right to pray, 
and regarded as positive proof in support of their 
theory. Please note carefully the following points: 
1. The subject under consideration (when the above- 
cited text was spoken) was the opening of the eyes 
of one who had been born blind, and not a sinner's 
prayer. 2. The text was spoken by a man whose eyes 
had been opened, and not by an inspired apostle. 3. 
The author of the text did not know whether or not 
Christ was a sinner: "Whether he be a sinner or no, 
I know not." (Verse 25.) 4. Neither did he believe 
on Jesus: "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on 
him?" (Verse 36.) 5. This text is not the language 
of inspiration any more than the language of the 
Jews (in verse 24): " We know that this man is a sin- 
ner." 6. From verse 13 to 34 of this chapter is sim- 
ply a true account of the controversy between the 
wicked Jews and the blind man about how his eyes 



314 



The Eight to Pray. 



had been opened, and whether Jesus was a good or a 
bad man. Verily, a theory must be in a great strait 
when such irrelevant texts are relied on for its sup- 
port. 

I wish to ask a question or two, and hope the reader 
will ponder them well. Have we any account of prayer 
before sin was in the world? Can any one conceive of 
any need for prayer until after the fall of man? Is 
it not clear that if there had been no sin no man 
could have prayed for pardon? As sin begat the ne- 
cessity for prayer, the greater the sinner the greater 
the need for prayer. It follows that those who deny 
men the right to pray for the pardon of their own 
sins and the sins of others do so without regard to 
Scripture or reason. Some teachers of the present 
day seem to delight in ridiculing the humble peni- 
tent's cry for mercy. The same spirit was exhibited 
by some of the Pharisees in the days of the Saviour 
on earth. When he was going about doing good, 
"As he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind 
man sat by the wayside begging;" and hearing the 
multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. They 
told him: " Jesus of Nazareth passeth by." He cried, 
saying: "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on 
me!" (Lukexviii. 35-38.) What a humble, sincere 
prayer! Who needed mercy more than this poor, un- 
fortunate man — blind, bodily and spiritually? Who 
ever uttered a prayer under more discouraging cir- 
cumstances? and yet who ever obtained a more sat- 
isfactory answer? There were some self-righteous 
ones who "went before" (verse 39), and "rebuked 
him, that he should hold his peace." But he cried 
so much the more, "Thou Son of David, have mercy 



The Right to Pkay. 



315 



on me!" Perhaps those who rebuked him had put 
themselves before Jesus to indicate their extreme 
zeal. There are some nowadays who seem to have 
stepped in "before Jesus," and are ever ready to re- 
buke penitent sinners when they cry for mercy. The 
blind man was not to be deprived of the blessing he 
so much needed and so earnestly desired. He cried 
so much the more: "Thou Son of David, have mercy 
on me!" Jesus stood and commanded him to be 
brought unto him;, and when he was come near, he 
asked him, "What wilt thou that I shall do unto 
thee?" and he said, "Lord, that I might receive my 
sight." Jesus said unto him, "Receive thy sight; 
thy faith hath saved thee." (Verses 40-42.) Here 
was a prayer offered in strong faith, in answer to 
which the blind man was restored to sight and he was 
saved. What great encouragement is this to peni- 
tent sinners to cry for mercy, even though scoffers re- 
buke them to hold their peace! 

In all ages there have been those in the Church who 
have " a form of godliness, but deny the power." That 
class seems to be greatly multiplied in the present day. 
They sneer at everything which has the covering of 
sackcloth and sits in ashes, and cries mightily unto 
God that they perish not. (Jonah iii. 5, 9.) They 
seem to have forgotten the precious promises God 
has given to mourners : " I will lead him also, and re- 
store comforts unto him and to his mourners." (Isa. 
lvii. 18.) In stating the object of Christ's mission to 
earth, the prophet says: "To comfort all that mourn; 
to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto 
them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, 
the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that 



316 



The Eight to Pray. 



they might be called Trees of righteousness, The plant- 
ing of the Lord, that he might be glorified." (Isa. 
Ixi. 2, 3.) The blessings here promised to all mourn- 
ers are just such as all sinners need, and must have, 
or perish forever. These blessings are promised 
alone to those who mourn, and God is to be glorified 
in granting them. " That he might be glorified." 
Those who dissuade sinners from mourning not only 
deprive them of these promised comforts, but rob 
God of the glory due him. Let no sinner be ashamed 
or afraid to mourn on account of his sins so long as 
this precious promise adorns the Sermon on the 
Mount: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall 
be comforted." (Matt. v. 4.) 

In some Churches it is the custom of sinners to fall 
upon their faces to worship. We have shown that 
praying to God is worship: " Then came she and wor- 
shiped him, saying, Lord, help me!" (Matt. xv. 25.) 
If we can learn from the writings of the apostles that 
sinners were accustomed to fall on their faces in 
church assemblies, for the purpose of worshiping 
God, in apostolic times, we should certainly feel jus- 
tifiable in observing the same mode of worship to the 
present day. In this event, those who oppose this 
mode of worship oppose the example of the apostles. 
I will now call attention to St. Paul's teaching on this 
point. Please note that his language is general: "If 
therefore the whole church be come together into one 
place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in 
those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not 
say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there 
come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he 
is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the 



The Eight to Pray. 



317 



secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling dozen 
on his face he will worship God, and report that God 
is in you of a truth." (1 Cor. xiv. 23-25. ) It is gener- 
ally admitted that prophesying in the New Testament 
means public preaching. Prom the general tenor of 
this chapter it would appear that some of those upon 
whom the gift of tongues had been conferred were 
accustomed to pervert the trust; hence the apostle 
urges the importance of making themselves under- 
stood when teaching in the church. He thinks it 
better to speak five words that may be understood 
than ten thousand in an unknown tongue. When the 
gospel truth is presented in plain, simple language, 
he tells us how unbelievers will be affected by it. 
They will be "convinced of all, judged of all" — that 
is, they will be reached and influenced by the gospel 
when they are made to understand it. "Thus are 
the secrets of his heart made manifest." Their con- 
science is quickened, and they view their heart-sins in 
a new light. "And so falling down on their face they 
will worship God, and report that God is in you of a 
truth." Observe that this is on an occasion of public 
worship. The unbeliever falls upon his face in the 
public congregation, and in this condition he wor- 
ships God until he is enabled to report that God is 
of a truth in his believing children. Why could he 
not make this report before? Simply because he had 
not the experience of grace to enable him to give such 
testimony. 

The man who never experienced a pain would be 
quite incomj3etent to testify of a truth that there is 
great affliction in pain. So no man is able to report 
of a truth that God is in his children, until after God 



318 



The Eight to Peay. 



sends forth the spirit of his Son into his heart, cry- 
ing, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself then beareth 
witness with his spirit that he is a child of God. In 
the above scripture the apostle teaches us what will 
be the result when the gospel is faithfully preached. 
Sinners will fall upon their faces in the churches and 
worship God. How does the apostle's teaching ac- 
cord with that form which calls aloud for sinners to 
come forward and confess that they believe Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God, and be baptized, stating 
that all this falling on the face in the church is wild- 
fire! excitement! unscriptural! that a sinner has no 
right to pray until after he has been baptized; and 
after he has been baptized he is not a sinner, but 
a Christian! hence, no sinner has a right to pray. 
Under such teaching suppose an unbeliever should 
do just as the apostle states — fall down on his face — 
what would his spiritual teacher say to him? " Come, 
my friend, you could not find authority in the Word 
of God for what you are doing if the salvation of the 
world depended on it ! Get up ! Do you believe Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God? Then come with me and be 
immersed, and all will be well with you." We have 
seen sinners fall upon their faces under the preach- 
ing of the gospel and worship God until they report- 
ed that God was in his children of a truth. If we 
had preached thirteen years, and had never witnessed 
such results, we would conclude that we were not 
preaching the gospel as Paul preached it. 

If I could believe that Christians have no right to 
pray for unbaptized persons, and unbaptized persons 
have no right to pray for themselves, I should be a 
strong advocate for infant baptism. I would place my 



The Right to Pray. 



319 



children in reach of whatever benefit they might re- 
ceive from the prayers of the righteous. " The effec- 
tual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" 
If it is wrong for unbaptized persons to pray or be 
prayed for, I apprehend that all good parents who 
have not had their infants baptized sin every day in 
praying for them and in teaching them to pray. Go 
on, parents, in this good work. God does not inti- 
mate that your prayers are to be restricted to such as 
have been baptized! You are commanded to pray 
without ceasing. Sinners, you are under condemna- 
tion, but God grants you the right of petition for 
pardon. If sentence of death has been passed upon 
an outlaw, and he makes an earnest petition to his 
governor for pardon, there is hope, especially if his 
petition be accompanied by many like petitions from 
good and loyal subjects. Sinner, make your petition 
to the Governor of the universe now, and many of 
his faithful children will send along their earnest 
prayers in your behalf. There is always good hope 
for a sinner when it can be said of him, " Behold, he 
prayeth! " 

We have passed through the subject, and find no 
Scripture objection to penitent sinners praying for 
pardon, or Christians praying for the pardon of sin- 
ners. On the other hand, we have found many pas- 
sages which teach that all men have a right to pray. 
Yea, all are commanded to pray! We ask: Whence 
cometh this objection to prayer? Surely it must be 
an' invention of the devil, or an offshoot of human 
pride. How did it come about that the right to pray 
for pardon was in any way dependent upon immer- 
sion? If the Bible teaches such doctrine, we would 



320 



The Eight to Pray. 



thank some kind friend to give us chapter and verse. 
We find scores of passages on the subject of prayer, 
but in no case do we find it stated or intimated that 
baptized persons alone are allowed to pray. Do those 
who teach that unbaptized sinners have no right to 
pray for pardon teach sinners to pray for pardon as 
soon as they have been baptized? or do they teach 
sinners are pardoned in the act of baptism ? Let us 
see. On page 534 of " Gospel Plan of Salvation" Mr. 
Brents says: " Sinners leave their sins just where they 
are baptized." At what time, then, do they pray for 
pardon? I confess I am curious to know. I have 
seen a few persons baptized in this faith, but I never 
heard one instructed to pray for pardon as soon as he 
came out of the water. Such are generally taught 
that they have put on Christ, and are safe so far as 
past sins are concerned. If there is one case in 
which a sinner has been baptized in this faith, and 
then instructed to pray for the pardon of past sins, I 
should like to have the case. 

After all, some will ask: "What profit should we 
have if we pray unto him?" We now close with a 
few passages of Scripture: "The sacrifices of God are 
a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, 
thou wilt not despise." (Ps. li. 17.) " Call upon me 
in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee," (Ps. 1. 15.) 
"Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people 
according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou 
hast forgiven this people, from Egypt until now. 
And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to 
thy word." (Num. xiv. 19, 20.) Did Moses offer 
this prayer, and did God answer it, before the law of 
pardon had been given? "Then shall ye call upon me, 



The Right to Pray, 321 

and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I shall hark- 
en unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, 
when ye shall search for me with all your heart." 
(Jer. xxix. 12, 13.) Dear sinner, down with your 
pride now, and cry out: "Thou Son of David, have 
mercy on me!" Amen. 
21 



A FRIENDLY TALK ON THE SEC- 
OND BLESSING. 

(323) 



R FRIENDLY TALK. 

We are told that the " second blessing " is a " sensitive ques- 
tion." " He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city 
that is broken down, and without walls." (Prov. xxv. 28.) 
"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he 
that ruleth his spikit than he that taketh a city." (Prov. xvi. 
32.) " Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry : for anger resteth 
in the bosom of fools." (Eccl. vii. 9.) " If a man say, I love 
God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar : for he that loveth not 
his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he 
hath not seen?" (1 John iv. 20.) Therefore the author of 
these pages has written out of a warm heart, full of the love of 
God, and love for his brother equal to that which he has for 
himself. Hoping that this little " friendly talk " may comfort 
many who are interested on the subject of a "second blessing," 
I send it out on the mission for which it was written. 

The Author. 
(325) 



INTRODUCTION. 

All who are " born of God " are children of God, or they are 
not children of God. If they are not God's children, whose 
children are they, and what have they gained by their birth? 
If they are children of God, then they are heirs of God ; and if 
heirs of God, they are joint heirs with Jesus Christ. A new- 
born babe is the child of its parents in the fullest sense of that 
term the very moment it is born, and is so recognized by all 
law, both human and divine. After its birth it develops into 
manhood by gradual growth without any great, thorough, sud- 
den, "second change." Seeing that Christ used the natural 
birth as an illustration of the spiritual birth, may not all who 
are truly born of God develop into men and women in Christ 
Jesus by gradual growth, and without any great " second bless- 
ing?" If not, why not? That God demands the whole heart, 
and then gives but half a blessing, is not taught in his word. So 
you will find by reading these pages. 

John H. Nichols. 

Unionville, Tenn., May 11, 1892. 
(326) 



OHAPTEE IX. 
A Friendly Talk on the Second Blessing. 



Member. Good morning, Brother Good Soul ; I came 
to talk to you on a subject about which I am deeply 
interested, and hope you can spare the time to give 
me the information I desire. 

Pastor. Certainly, Brother Faithful. I am always 
ready to help anybody in any way I can; and if I can 
give you any assistance, I shall be glad to do so. 

Member. Well, I have been reading a great deal of 
late on the subject of " Sanctification," and what 
some call the " second blessing," and I am somewhat 
" crossed up " in my mind on the subject. I was 
"born of the Spirit" thirty-seven years ago, and in 
that spiritual birth I experienced all that is contained 
in such scriptures as these: "I passed from death 
unto life," " from the power of Satan unto God," " old 
things are passed away; behold, all things are be- 
come new." I " tasted the good word of God, and the 
powers of the world to come," and I "had the witness 
in myself" that I was "born of God;" and ever since 
my conversion I have observed the golden rule, "As 
ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them," and to-day " the Spirit itself beareth witness 
with my spirit, that I am a child of God;" but the 
good people who say they have received a " second 
blessing," and are "sanctified," tell me that I am 
" not right before God," that I must seek the " second 
blessing." Now I know that God has answered my 

(327) 



328 



A Friendly Talk. 



prayers hundreds of times, and given me blessings 
without number since my conversion; and often I 
have been filled with the Spirit of God, and have " re- 
joiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory," but 
they say I am not " sanctified " because I have never 
received the " second blessing." I know you believe 
in sticking squarely to the Bible in all religious mat- 
ters, and I want you to please tell me just what the 
Bible teaches about 

Sanctification. 
Pastor, According to the Scriptures many things 
were sanctified in olden times, and we will have to 
take time to look into a few of them and see if we can 
learn the Bible meaning of the term. The first thing 
which was said to be sanctified was the 

Seventh Day. 
"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." 
(Gen. ii. 3.) Now let us read Leviticus xxiii. 3: " Six 
days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the 
Sabbath of rest, a holy convocation." Here we see 
that God gave six days in which secular business 
must be attended to and secular work should be 
done, but he separated the seventh day from the six 
working days, and set it apart for holy purposes, 
" a holy convocation " — that is, a coming together of 
the people on the seventh day for holy purposes : pur- 
poses of worshiping God. So the word "sanctify" 
here means to "set apart" or "separate." But we 
notice that 

Mount Sinai 
was sanctified. "And Moses said unto the Lord, 
The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou 
chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, 



A Friendly Talk. 



329 



and sanctify it." (Ex. xix. 23. ) That is, separate or 
set apart Mount Sinai as the place from which Jeho- 
vah will speak the ten comraandments to all the peo- 
ple in an audible voice, and from which he will after- 
ward deliver the same to Moses written on two tables 
of stone. So sanctify here means " separate, set 
apart''' Again, we notice that the 

Tabernacle and the Altar 
were sanctified. "And there I will meet with the 
children of Israel. . . . And I will sanctify the 
tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar." (Ex. 
xxix. 43, 44.) That is, separate, set apart, the taberna- 
cle and the altar as the place where He would meet 
with his p'eople and show them his loving-kindness in 
a peculiar manner. Again, we notice that the 

Breast and the Shoulder 
of the wave and heave offerings were sanctified. 
"And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offer- 
ing, and the shoulder of the heave offering, . . ' . 
even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is 
for his sons: and it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by 
a statute forever from the children of Israel." (Ex. 
xxix. 27, 28. ) That is, the breast and shoulder were 
separated, set apart, for Aaron and his son. But we 
notice again that the 

Firstborn 

were sanctified. "Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, 
. . . among the children of Israel, both of man 
and of beast: it is mine," (Ex. xiii. 2.) That is, 
separate, set apart, the firstborn, "both of man and of 
beast," to the Lord, for they are his. Devote them to 
his service. 



330 



A Friendly Talk. 



Aaron and his Sons 
were sanctified. God ordered that " coats," " girdles," 
and "bonnets" should be made: "And thon shalt put 
them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; 
and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and 
sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the 
priest's office." (Ex. xxviii. 41.) Aaron and his 
sons were separated, set apart to minister unto the 
Lord "in the priest's office." 

Member. I want to interrupt you just a little. Could 
Aaron and his sons sin after they were sanctified? 

Pastor. If you will read Exodus xxxii. 2-14, you 
will see that Aaron took the "golden earrings " of the 
people, "and fashioned it with a graving tool, after 
he had made it a molten calf," "built an altar before 
it," and offered burnt offerings to it ; and the Lord's an- 
ger was kindled, and he said that the people had " cor- 
rupted themselves;" so his anger waxed hot against 
them, and but for Moses' prayer he would have con- 
sumed them. All this after he was sanctified. 

Member. But Aaron was finally saved. Can a sanc- 
tified person sin against God so as to be finally lost? 

Pastor. Turn to Leviticus x. 1, 2: "Arid Nadab and 
Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his 
censer, and put fire therein, and put incense therein, 
and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he 
commanded them not. And there went out fire from 
the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before 
the Lord." Remember, all this took place after they 
were sanctified. 

Member. That answers my question; and if you have 
anything more to say in regard to the use of the 
word "sanctify" in the Old Testament, I would like 
to hear it. I have been very much stirred up on this 



A Friendly Talk. 



331 



subject, and I am glad you are sticking to the Bible, 
for I want to settle the question by the Bible alone, 
and then it will be rightly settled. 

Pastor. Yes. I wish to give another case or two in 
which the word "''sanctify'* is used in the Old Testa- 
ment. In Leviticus xx. 7, 8 Ave read: " Sanctify your- 
self, therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your 
God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: 
I am the Lord which sanctify you.'' Here we notice 
that the people are commanded to sanctify themselves, 
and in the next verse the Lord says, "J sanctify you." 
That is, separate yourselves from all sinful deeds, and 
set yourselves apart to "keep my statutes, and do them," 
for I separate you. an^. set- you apart to that work. Now, 
from the few passages we have noticed, the Old Testa- 
ment use of the word " sanctify " was to point out a 
person or thing, and persons and things that had been 
separated, set apart by the Lord for certain specified 
use in the service of God. As to sanctified things, 
they were separated, set apart by the Lord and by the 
people for the specified use in God's service; and as to 
sanctified persons, they were such as were separated, 
set apart by God for specified service, and those that 
sanctified themselves were such as separated, set apart 
themselves to the special work for which God had cho- 
sen them. We will now turn our attention to the 

New Testament 
use of the word "sanctify. 15 We will notice that 

Gold 

was sanctified. " Whether is greater, the gold, or the 
temple that sanctifieth the gold?" ('Matt, xxiii. 17. I 
"'The gold of the temple" had been separated from all 
common uses, and set apart for sacred use in the tem- 
ple, hence it was sanctified. Xext we notice the 



332 



A Friendly Talk. 



The Gift upon the Altar 
was sanctified. " Whether is greater, the gift, or the 
altar that sanctifieth the gift?" (Matt, xxiii. 19.) 
"The gift upon the altar" was separated from all 
common uses, and was set apart as an offering to God. 
We notice next that 

Unbelieving Husbands and Wives 
were sanctified. "For the unbelieving husband is 
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
sanctified by the husband." (1 Cor. vii. 14, ) The 
sanctified gold and gift had no sanctity except what 
they derived from the temple and the altar; and the 
unbelieving husband and wife have no sanctity except 
what they derive from the believing wife and hus- 
band, and so it is said: " The temple " and " the altar " 
"sanctify the gold" and "the gift," and the "believ- 
ing wife" and "husband" "sanctify the unbelieving 
husband" and "wife." Again, we notice that 

Every Creature of God 
is sanctified. " For every creature of God is good, 
and nothing to be refused, if it be received with 
thanksgiving : for it is sanctified by the word of God 
and prayer." (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.) That is, every crea- 
ture of God was set apart as food for believers " by 
the word of God," and "by prayer." Having noticed 
the use of the word " sanctify " in the New Testa- 
ment as applied to things other than man and to un- 
believers, we come now to notice the same word as 
applied to Jesus Christ and his followers. 

Jesus Christ 
was sanctified. " Say ye of him, whom the Father 
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou bias- 



A Friendly Talk. 



333 



phemest?" (John x. 36.) "And for their sakes I 
sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified 
through the truth." (John xvii. 19.) The Father 
set apart the Son, and sent him into the world to save 
sinners; and the Son set himself apart to that work; 
so he was sanctified by the Father, and he sanctified 
himself. He was set apart to do a special work, and 
he did that work. 

The Lord God 

is sanctified in the hearts of all true believers. " But 
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts : and be ready 
always to give an answer to every man that asketh 
you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness 
and fear." (1 Pet. iii. 15.) That is, set apart the 
Lord God in your hearts as your Priest and King, to 
"rule in you," and reign over you in all things; and 
don't be afraid to discuss religious questions with 
any man, but " be ready always to give an answer to 
every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that 
is in you." 

Member, Brother Good Soul, I am very glad you 
brought out that last point, for some say: " The ques- 
tion of sanctification is a very sensitive one, and I am 
afraid to touch it lest I might offend some one." 

Pastor. "We should discuss all questions with 
"meekness and" godly "fear," but we should never 
let the fear of men deter us in the discussion of any 
question. But we will notice next that the 

Flesh and Conscience 

are sanctified. "For if the blood of bulls and of 
goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the un- 
clean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how 
much more shall the blood of Christ , . . purge 



334 



A Friendly Talk. 



your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
God." (Heb. ix. 13, 14) That is, "if the blood of 
bulls and goats " on the day of atonement could, in a 
typical way, take away guilt; and if the "ashes of a 
heifer" mixed with water (Num. xix. 1-13), and 
sprinkled upon those who were unclean by touching a 
dead body, could produce a typical sanctity, separating 
from uncleanness, and setting them apart for the serv- 
ice of God, and admitting them into the congrega- 
tion of the Lord; "how much more shall the blood 
of Christ . . . purge your conscience from dead 
works to serve the living God," separate your con- 
science from dead works, and set it apart "to serve 
the living God." We will now notice that the 

Church 

is sanctified. " Husbands, love your wives, even aa 
Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for 
it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word." (Eph. v. 25, 26.) 
That is, separate the Church from all sin, and set it 
apart as a coworker with him in the salvation of the 
world; and if the Church will set itself apart to this 
work, it will be " a glorious Church, not having spot, 
or wrinkle, or any such thing," and it will be "holy 
and without blemish." ("Verse 27. ) How we do need 
a sanctified Church now — a Church separated from all 
sinful ways, washed by the " washing of regeneration," 
and renewed by the "renewing of the Holy Ghost," 
and set apart to the very best service it can render to 
God. To this end the apostle instructed and prayed 
for the 

Church of the Thessalonians 
in this language: "Pray without ceasing," "Quench 



A Friendly Talk. 



335 



not the Spirit;" " Prove all things; hold fast that 
which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. 
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and 
I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be 
preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. v. 17-23.) The duties here 
pointed out for members of the Church to do were 
such as they could not perform without the constant 
help of God; therefore, the apostle prays that God 
would sanctify them wholly — separate them soul and 
body from sin, and set them apart for his service; and 
all who do the service of God "willingly," not from 
"slavish fear," or for worldly honors or rewards, but 
out of pure love to God and the souls of men, "shall 
have a reward." (1 Cor. ix. 17.) After writing to 
Timothy in regard to many sins into which men are 
liable to fall, he says: "If a man therefore purge 
himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, 
sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared 
unto every good work," (2 Tim. ii. 21.) 

Member. Am I to understand that when a man is 
sanctified irholly all evil propensities are taken out 
of his body; that there is perfect harmony between 
the soul- and the body? 

Pastor. In the next verse to the one I last cited, 
Paul says to Timothy: "Flee also youthful lusts." 
(Verse 22.) "To all that be in Home, beloved of 
- God, called to be saints." (Bom. i. 7.) Paul says: 
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, 
that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither 
yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteous- 
ness unto sin." (Rom. vi. 12, 13.) Of himself Paul 
says: "I see another law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind, and [if I yield to that 



336 



A Friendly Talk. 



law] bringing me into captivity to the law of sin 
which is in my members." (Rom. vii. 23.) 

Member. Then how is it possible for Paul to live a 
pure Christian life ? 

Pastor. I will let Paul tell you. " I keep under 
my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by 
any means, when I have preached to others, I myself 
should be a castaway." (1 Cor. ix. 27.) Remember 
Paul wrote this about twelve or thirteen years after he 
was " caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable 
words." (2 Cor. xii. 1, 4) If the body had no evil 
propensities, can you give any reason why Paul should 
"keep it under," and " bring it into subjection?" 

Member. No, sir; for if the evil propensities had 
been taken out of his body, it looks like it was 
already "under" and "in subjection." But if the 
body is kept " in subjection," will not that destroy all 
of its evil propensities? 

Pastor. I will give you another text and let you 
decide. A bishop must be " one that ruleth well his 
own house, having his children in subjection." (1 
Tim. iii. 4) What do you think this means? De- 
struction of the children? 

Member. Certainly not. The children must not 
have their own way, but must be ruled by the father. 
So I suppose Paul's "inward man" took control of 
his "outward man/' and kept it from "yielding its 
members as instruments of unrighteousness;' 5 for I 
remember that he says: "We . . . worship God 
in the Spirit . . . and have no confidence in the 
flesh." (Phil. iii. 3. ) But what did Paul mean when 
he says: "They that are Christ's have 
Ckucified the Flesh 
with the affections and lusts ? " ( Gal. v. 24. ) 



A Friendly Talk. 



337 



Pastor. Just a few verses before the one you cite 
Paul gives a list of sins which he says are " works of 
the flesh." Then he gives us a list of virtues which 
he says are "fruits of the spirit." Then comes the 
verse that you cited, in which Paul tells us what the 
man does who is Christ's: he crucifies, binds, confines, 
66 keeps tender," "brings into subjection;" and through 
the spirit mortifies the deeds of the body" (Rom. viii. 
13.) Now, bear in mind that all this is done by the 
man "through the spirit;" therefore, it is the duty of 
all who are " in Christ Jesus " to take full control of 
the flesh, trusting in God who will always give grace 
sufficient to overcome, but will not remove the "thorn 
in the flesh." (2 Cor. xii. 7.) 

Member. Brother Good Soul, I am very anxious to 
get the truth of this matter fully, and I am puzzled 
over Romans vi. 6: "Our old man is crucified with 
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin." Now, does not 
this refer to the complete destruction of all the sinful 
propensities of the flesh? 

Pastor. I will read the twelfth verse. " Let not sin 
therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should 
obey it in the lusts thereof." Now, if all propensity 
to sin was destroyed in the flesh, why give charge 
not to let a 66 dead thing " reign in the body? Or why 
charge not to " obey lusts " ichich are dead ? 

Member. But, brother, the eleventh verse says: 
"Dead indeed into sin, but alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord." How can this be if the body 
still has evil inclinations and passions ? 

Pastor. Before conversion the corrupt soul, the 
"old man," was alive to the service and demands of 
the flesh; but after conversion, or rather, in conver- 
22 



338 



A Friendly Talk. 



sion, "the old man which is corrupt" is "put off," 
and the "new man," which after God is created in 
righteousness and true holiness," is " put on." (Eph. 
iv. 22-24. ) Now, as the old man was dead to Christ, 
and inactive in his service, but alive to and active in 
the service of sinful flesh; even so is the "new man" 
dead to and inactive in the service of the flesh, but alive 
to Christ and active in his service. Is that plain enough ? 

Member. Well, I hardly see it that way. It seems 
to me that if sinful propensities are still in the flesh, 
the soul cannot be dead to sin. 

Pastor. Well, brother, before conversion the sinner 
is dead to Christ — "dead in trespasses and sins." 
(Eph. ii. 1.) Does this prove that there was no life 
in Christ? 

Member. Certainly not. It only proves that the 
sinner or " old man " was out of harmony with the 
life in Christ, and that he was opposing Christ in all 
his ways, and refusing to meet any of the demands 
Christ made on him. 

Pastor. Just so; the "new man" is out of harmony 
with the "carnal desires of the flesh," refusing to 
render them service, but this by no means proves that 
there are no evil propensities in the flesh. 

Member. Well, that looks reasonable, but what 
about 

Perfection? 

From what you have said of the word "sanctify," it 
seems to be used in about the same sense in the New 
Testament that is used in the Old, and is applied to 
things as well as to men; but how do we become per- 
fect in a Bible sense? 

Pastor. We will come to that after awhile. I want 
to show you, before we leave the point we were on, 



A Friendly Talk. 



339 



that the bodies o£ Christians will never be any thing 
in this world but 

Natural Corrupt Bodies. 
From what has already been shown, it would seem 
that no one would doubt this fact; but to put it beyond 
the possibility of a doubt, I invite your attention to 
what Paul says about the bodies of the saints at the 
time of their death and burial, and how they will be 
changed in the resurrection. Speaking of the burial 
and resurrection of Christian bodies, he says: "It is 
sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is 
sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in 
weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural 
body, it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. xv. 42- 
44) Here we see that "corruption," "dishonor," 
"weakness," and all the natural propensities of these 
bodies of ours will cling to them until they are laid 
in the grave, so they will be sown "natural" bodies. 
Is it any wonder that Paul had "no confidence in the 
flesh?" 

Member. I think not; and is it all strange that there 
was " war in his members," seeing he had a converted 
soul in an unconverted body? But how do you know 
the apostle speaks only of the bodies of believers 
here?" 

Pastor. Because he says these bodies shall be 
raised in incorruption, glory, power, spiritual body; 
and Daniel says the bodies of sinners shall be raised 
"to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel xii. 
2. ) So it is absolutely certain that Paul was speak- 
ing of the bodies of Christians. 

Member. That seems clear; but what will be the 
difference between the bodies of saints and sinners in 
the resurrection? 



3iO 



A Friendly Talk. 



Pastor. Well, we see from the passages just cited 
that all of the evil propensities will be purged out of 
the bodies of saints in the resurrection, and it will be 
made a "spiritual body; " for "the Lord Jesus Christ 
. . . shall change our vile body, that it may be 
fashioned like unto his glorious body.' 5 (Phil, iii 20, 
21.) So then, when the purified soul shall be re- 
united with the purified body, there will be no " war 
in our members,'' but perfect harmony between soul 
and body. 

Member. But what about the bodies of sinners? 

Pastor, "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the 
flesh reap corruption." (Gal. vi. 8.) Having sown 
to the lusts of his flesh; having " lived after the flesh," 
having ".minded the things of the flesh," he shall 
reap in the resurrection his old sinful body, with all 
its sinful lusts and passions, destined to live eternally 
in the agonies of hell without any means to gratify 
any passion, propensity, or desire; the rich man in 
hell could not get one drop of water to cool Jus tongue. 

Member. That is indeed awful! But are you not 
ready now to tell me how we may obtain 

Chbistiax Perfection? 

Pastor. Yes; I am ready now for that subject, I 
believe all are agreed that we cannot reach a point of 
Christian perfection where it will be impossible for 
us to still "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of 
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Pet. 
iii. 18.) 

Member. Tes, sir; I think so. I believe most au- 
thors I have read on " sanctification " say that "con- 
version/' "the new birth/' or " regeneration," is "sanc- 
tification " or " Christian perfection " begun. Now, if 



A Friendly Talk. 



341 



that is " sanctification," or " Christian perfection" be- 
gun, where and how is it finished? You know that 
some say it is reached by a 

Second Blessing, 
and that no one is "perfect in Christ" who has not 
had a great second cleansing after having been " born 
of the Spirit." 

Pastor. Yes, I have noticed that; but of course you 
know the Bible says nothing directly about a " second 
blessing," but it might be well enough to pay some 
attention to what is said on that point, as some good 
people have written in defense of the 

Second Blessing Theory. 

Member. Yes, my brother; and you must "go slow" 
on that point, for I have been reading up on that, 
and I am almost, if not altogether, converted to that 
theory. Just read 2 Corinthians i. 15: "And in this 
confidence I was minded to come unto you before, 
that ye might have a second benefit." How will you 
avoid the second blessing theory as taught here? 

Pastor. I see nothing like the second blessing 
theory in that. Bead the twelfth chapter and four- 
teenth verse: " Behold, the third time I am ready to 
come to you." Do you suppose the Corinthians re- 
ceived any benefit from this third visit? 

Member. W-e-1-1, I suppose they did, of course. 

Pastor. Why not have a third blessing theory then? 
Don't good people receive a benefit every time they 
are visited and ministered to by God's faithful min- 
isters ? 

Member. Of course they do, b-u-t — 
Pastor. Why not cry out then, like David: " Bless 
the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits/' 



342 



A Friendly Talk. 



(Ps. ciii. 2.) There is no end to the benefits we are 
receiving through God's ministers, but I see no sec- 
ond blessing theory taught anywhere in the Bible. 

Member. Why, Brother Good Soul, didn't Paul say 
to the elders of the Church at Ephesus that God's 
word and grace w x as able to build them up, and 
give them " an inheritance among all them which are 
sanctified?" (Acts xx. 32.) Now were not these 
elders Christians, and does not Paul's language show T 
that they were not yet sanctified? 

Pastor. Certainly they were Christians, but they 
had not yet received their "inheritance" in heaven; 
yet God was able to " build them up," even in their 
most severe persecutions, and give them finally an in- 
heritance in heaven "with all the sanctified," in spite 
of their persecutors. 

Member c Now, brother, do you really think that is 
what Paul meant ? 

Pastor. Certainly; listen to Peter: "Blessed be the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
. . . hath begotten us again unto a lively hope" 
and " to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, 
and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you." 
(1 Pet. i. 3.) The Christian's inheritance is not in 
this world, my brother; we may receive "the earnest 
of our inheritance" here (Eph. i. 14), but our inher- 
itance is in heaven. Isn't that very clear? 

Member. I don't know so well about that, but we 
will leave that passage and I will call your attention 
to a few more. Did not the apostles receive the sec- 
ond blessing at Pentecost when they were " filled with 
the Holy Ghost?" Were they not sanctified then 
and there? 

Pastor. 1. Before Pentecost the apostles were not 



A Friendly Talk. 



343 



of the world: " Ye are not of the world ... I 
have chosen yon out of the world." ( John xv. 19.) 

2. Devils were subject to them. " The seventy re- 
turned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils 
are subject unto us through thy name." (^Luke x. 17. ) 

3. Their names were written in heaven. " But rather 
rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." 
(Terse 20.) Being separated from the world and set 
apart to the work of the ministry, they were sanctified 
according to the Bible use of the word "sanctify." 

Member. But remember that the apostles were self- 
ish and had contentions among themselves before 
Pentecost, and all this was done away when they got 
the " second blessing." 

Pastor. What? Did not Paul and Barnabas have a 
sharper contention after Pentecost than any of the 
apostles had before? "And the contention was so 
sharp between them, that they departed asunder one 
from the other." (Acts xv. 39.) Did not Peter dis- 
semble at Antioch, " fearing them which were of the 
circumcision" (Gal. ii. 12), and did not Paul with- 
stand him "to the face, because he was to be blamed?" 
(Terse 11.) Why don't you establish a third bless- 
ing theory on the fact that some while after Pentecost 
the " place" where the apostles were "was shaken," 
"and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost?" 
(Acts iv. 31.) 

Member. But you must remember that the apostles 
were narrow in their views about the gospel, thought 
it belonged to the Jewish nation alone; but all this 
narrowness was taken out of them at Pentecost when 
they received the second blessing. 

Pastor. Why, brother, you must be talking at ran- 
dom. Peter was the speaker at Pentecost; and sure- 



A Friendly Talk. 



ly if any of them got the "second blessing," he did; 
and eight or nine years after Pentecost, did he not 
have that narrow, selfish idea of the gospel? and did 
not God work a special miracle to get this narrowness 
oat of him? "A certain vessel descending unto him, 
. . . wherein were all manner of fourf ooted beasts 
of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, 
and fowls of the air," and did not "a voice come to 
him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat; " and so strong was his 
prejudice, did he not say "Not so, Lord?" and did 
he not "doubt in himself what this vision meant?" 
and did he not wait until he was positively commanded 
to arise and get down and go and preach to the 
Gentiles? (Acts x. 9-14.) And when he reached 
the house of Cornelius, did he not say, "It is an un- 
lawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, 
or come unto one of another nation" (verse 28); not- 
withstanding the Son of God had said to all the 
apostles eight years before this: "Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature." 
(Mark xvi. 15.) 

Member. But perhaps this was just one of Peter's 
mistakes, and the other apostles were free from self- 
ishness. 

Pastor. Did they not charge him and try him as 
soon as he got to Jerusalem, "Saying, thou wentest 
in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them" 
(Acts xi. 3)? and did he not have to bring up "six 
brethren" (who went with him) as witnesses before 
they would excuse him? Up to this time had not all 
the apostles been "preaching the word to none but 
unto the Jews only?" (Acts xi. 19.) 

Member. Well, you have got me a little puzzled 
about the second blessing on the day of Pentecost. 



A Friendly Talk. 



345 



Pastor. One thing seems to be clear, and that is, if 
the apostles got the "second blessing" at Pentecost, 
it did not do for them what some of our " second 
blessing " brethren claim it has done for them. Now, 
brother, when rain falls on the earth, it brings to life 
some seeds, and strengthens, builds up, and helps to 
grow plants that are already up. So when the Holy 
Ghost falls upon the people he " washes" "sanctifies ," 
and "justifies" penitent sinners who believe (1 Cor. 
vi. 11); and strengthens, builds up, and helps to grow 
those who have been " raised up to walk in newness 
of life." 

Member. To say the least of it, that looks reason- 
able. But didn't Cornelias receive the " second bless- 
ing " when the Holy Ghost fell on him? I have read 
an argument which seemed to show very clearly that 
he was a converted man before he sent for Peter. 

Pastor. Why use an argument to prove that Corne- 
lius was a converted man before Peter visited him? 
"And Cornelius waited for them, and had called to- 
gether his kinsmen and near friends." (Acts x. 24.) 
" While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost 
fell on all them which heard the ivord" (Verse 44.) 
Why not prove that all of Cornelius's "kinsmen and 
near friends"'' were converted before this? Of this 
occasion, Peter says: "And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." 
( Ch. xi. 15. ) Who will rise up and say that the Holy 
Ghost did not fail upon the "three thousand souls" 
that were "added unto them" at Pentecost? (Acts 
ii. 41. ) Were they all Christians before ? and were all 
of Cornelius's " kinsmen and near friends" Christians 
before? and did they all receive the " second blessing " 
on these occasions ? Certainly this would have to be 



346 A Friendly Talk. 

proven before you could make out a case of " second 
blessing" for the apostles and Cornelius, on the 
ground that they received the Holy Ghost on those 
occasions. Isn't that clear? 

Member. W-e-1-1, that seems tolerably clear; but I 
am still at a loss to know how you can make out a 
case of 

Christian Perfection 
without a "second blessing." How is it done? 

Pastor. I think it is by conversion, using this 
term in the sense of regeneration, or the new birth. 
" But to him that w T orketh not, but believeth on him 
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
righteousness." (Eom. iv. 5.) " Therefore [the un- 
godly] being justified by faith, we have peace with 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ," and we "re- 
joice in hope of the glory of God," "because the love 
of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
which is given unto us." (Rom. v. 1-5.) Here is 
"justification," "rejoicing," "the love of God in the 
heart" (whole inward man), and the Holy Ghost 
"given" to us. Isn't that Christian perfection? 

Member. No, sir; I don't see it that way. I think 
sanctification comes by faith, and is a second blessing 
coming after conversion, and raising us far above 
any thing that is experienced in conversion or regen- 
eration. 

Pastor. Of course sanctification comes through 
faith — anything pertaining to Christian life any way 
comes through faith; we can neither be "born of 
God" nor "grow in grace" without faith. We need 
not discuss "faith," for we believe alike on that; it is 
what you call the "second blessing" we disagree 
about, I hold that when a man is "born of God," 



A Friendly Talk. 



347 



"born of the Spirit," "converted," or "regenerated," 
he is then "in Christ Jesus." Am I correct? 
Member. yes, I agree with you in that, b-u-t — 
Pastor. Hold, brother. "Therefore if any man be 
in Christ, he is a new creature: old tilings are passed 
away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. v. 
17.) So then, all who are truly converted have "put 
off . . . the old man/' and are "renewed in the 
Spirit of their minds," and have "put on the new 
man, which after God is created in righteousness and 
true holiness." (Eph. iv. 22-24.) It is this "true 
holiness" and. "ail things new," that you claim for 
the second blessing, is it not ? 

Member. Yes, sir; and I am not ready to give it 
up yet? 

Pastor. "Well, brother, if in conversion "we pass 
from death unto life" (John v. 24), and are "created 
in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Eph. ii. 10), and 
"old things pass away," and "all things become 
new," and we reach "'righteousness and true holi- 
ness," what more is promised to believers in this life? 

Member. I will not answer that now, but I fear you 
have forgotten what is said on this subject by so 
many good people who claim that they got all these 
blessings in the "second blessing." 

Pastor. No, I have not forgotten; but I started out 
to settle this matter by the Bible, and not by any- 
body's theory. I think that the all-important matter 
is to get the first blessing, pure and genuine; or, in 
Bible language, "be converted," "born again," and 
then "as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of 
the word, that ye may grow thereby" (1 Pet. ii. 2); 
and by the faithful use of all the means of grace, con- 
tinue to " grow in grace and in the knowledge of our 



348 



A Friendly Talk. 



Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." I know noth- 
ing that is required in the Bible which, goes beyond 
this. 

Member. But, brother, you don't seem to lay much 
stress on the fact that the "second blessing" brethren 
are sure that the Holy Ghost was poured down upon 
the apostles and Cornelius to give them the " second 
blessing," or true holiness, as they teach it. 

Pastor. The fact that our " second blessing " people 
so understand it does not affect my understanding of 
it in any way. As I have said, rain is not only essen- 
tial to the germination of the seed and the springing 
up of plants, but is also essential to the growth 
of plants, and so frequent rains are needed; so 
of the Holy Ghost. The admonition of Peter is: 
" Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your 
sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing- 
shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 
iii. 19.) So the apostles were filled with the Holy 
Ghost not at Pentecost only, but many times after- 
ward, and so with all truly converted men and women 
now. They have their " refreshings from the pres- 
ence of the Lord," and without them they could no 
more continue to 66 grow up into him in all filings, 
which is the head, even Christ" (Eph. iv. 15), than 
plants can continue to grow up into the air without 
refreshing showers of rain. "As the rain cometh 
down, and the s?iow from heaven," and " watereth the 
earth, and makoth it bring forth and bud . . . so 
shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth." 
(Isa. lv. 10, 11.) Seeing, then, that we are first con- 
verted, and then "grow up into Christ in all things" I 
see no more Scripture nor reason for a second great 
and thorough change, instantaneous, called the " sec- 



A Friendly Talk. 



349 



ond blessing/' than I do for an instantaneous thor- 
ough change in plants, after they spring up, which 
would bring them to a state that they could not 
reach by gradual growth. In the case of plants 
we know this is not true, and yet Jesus says: " The 
kingdom of God*' is "as if a man should cast seed 
into the ground, . . . and. the seed should spring 
and grow up, . . . first the blade, then the ear, 
after that the full corn in the ear/' (Mark iv. 26- 
28.) Again he says: " The kingdom of God is within 
you." (Luke xvii. 21.) It is out of all reason to 
look to the illustration here used by the Saviour for 
any support of the second blessing theory, for every- 
thing in the illustration overturns the theory. The 
seed 

" Springs up." 

That represents the conversion. Then by gradual 
growth it develops " first the blade, then the ear, then 
the full corn in the ear." Do we find the "second 
blessing" theory here? By no means. 

Member. But when did that corn reach perfection? 

Pastor. The very first blade was a perfect blade; 
nay, before the blade the very sprout was a perfect 
sprout, and if it developed rapidly, as it should have 
done with the means of development it had, it was 
perfect all the way through. 

Member. You mean to say, then, that when a man is 
genuinely converted he is a perfect Christian. 

Pastor. Certainly; he is a perfect babe in Christ. 
Let me read Jeremiah xxix. 13: "And ye shall seek 
me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all 
your hearts Do you think that God. requires " all the 
heart" and then gives only half of a blessing ? Will 
God accept of a sinner any less than the whole heart, 



350 



A Friendly Talk. 



and will lie give him in return any less than a whole 
blessing ? Nay verily. 

Member. W-e-1-1, I must confess that you are about 
to upset my views of the second blessing theory. If 
you are correct, I fear many persons in the Church 
have never given the whole heart to God. 

Pastor. I fear there is too much truth in that. Per- 
haps some have simply had their emotional nature 
stirred, and have taken that for conversion; while 
others have had their emotions aroused and their in- 
tellects stirred up to think and theorize on the sub- 
ject of salvation, and have taken that for conversion. 
But those who are genuinely converted have given 
the whole heart to God — emotional nature, mental 
power, and the will, "bringing into captivity every 
thought to the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor. x. 5.) 
A perfect committal of the whole man to Christ, and 
they have been made perfect in Christ Jesus. 

Member. But, brother, what does Paul mean when 
he exhorts Christians to "go on unto perfection?" 

Pastor. When a plant stops growing, it dies; and 
when a Christian stops growing, he dies. Here is a 
perfect plant to-day, and it has all of the means of 
growth to make it five inches taller in another week, 
but at the end of that week it is not one bit taller or lar- 
ger in any way; so it is not perfect now, because it did 
not go on to perfection. Just so with a perfect Chris- 
tian. He remains perfect so long as he grows and 
develops rapidly as he should with the faithful use of 
the means furnished for his Christian growth; but 
when he loses faith in any degree, commits sins, or 
neglects duty, he falls below Christian perfection. 
Now, as the Bible is silent on the " second blessing " 
theory, and as none of the apostles, prophets, priests, 



A Friendly -Talk. 



351 



or kings have told us that they received a "great sec- 
ond cleansing" after their conversion, I have been 
discussing the matter from 

A Different Standpoint. 
I have used Christ's illustration of conversion and 
Christian growth, and will now use another one, 
which, I think, is one of the strongest used in the 
Bible. " Except a man be born again, he cannot see 
the kingdom of God. 59 ( John iii. 3.) Here Christ 
uses the natural birth to illustrate the spiritual birth. 
Can we get the "second blessing" theory out of this 
illustration? 

Member. W-e-1-1, I don't know exactly. 

Pastor. Let us try it. You know the Bible speaks 
of "babes in Christ," "young men," and "fathers 
and mothers" in Israel. 

Member. Yes, that is true. 

Pastor. "Well, here is a newborn babe. We ask 
the doctor if it is perfect. He examines it very thor- 
oughly, and finds the right number of limbs, all prop- 
erly set and sufficiently developed for one of its age; 
its body well proportioned and every part in its reg- 
ular order, and he says: "I pronounce this child per- 
fect." Would you say the doctor was wrong; that 
this child must undergo a second, sudden, radical, and 
thorough physical change before it could be a perfect 
child physically? 

Member. O no, of course I would not. 

Pastor. Do we not know that this child will not 
undergo such a change, but that by the proper use of 
food, and observing the laws of health, it will come to 
manhood by gradual growth ? 

Member. Certainly we do. 

Pastor. Then if Christ understood his own illustra- 



352 



A Friendly Talk. 



tion, and if it was a correct illustration of the spir- 
itual birth, are not all who are "born of God" per- 
fect "babes in Christ/' and by a faithful and constant 
use of all the means of grace, will they not develop, 
by gradual growth, into perfect men in Christ as 
surely as the natural child develops into physical 
manhood by gradual growth? If not, why not? 

Member. AYell, that does look reasonable; but when 
are we sanctified, or made holy, or perfect in Christ 
— a child of God in the highest sense? 

Pastor. The moment a child is born into this world, 
that moment it is the child of its parents in the highest 
sense, so recognized by a]l law, both human and divine. 
Just so when one is "born of God," he is in that mo- 
ment a child of God in the highest sense, separated from 
the world and cleansed from all sin— made a "new 
creature in Christ Jesus," and is set apart to serve 
God "in spirit and in truth," and being thus "separ- 
ated" and " set apart " he is sanctified icholhj in the 
Bible sense of that term. Thus he is a perfect "babe 
in Christ." 

Member. Well, I must acknowledge that does look 
reasonable, but I can't quite get the idea fixed in my 
mind that the newly converted man is perfect. 

Pastor. "Well, I suppose it would be equally as hard 
for me to get it fixed in my mind how any one could 
be "born of God," pass "from death unto life," be 
washed with the "washing of regeneration," and re- 
newed with the "renewing of the Holy Ghost," be 
" delivered from the power of darkness, and translated 
into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. i. 13), and 
yet be unholy, unsanctified. It may be that your 
trouble is this: a perfect babe is not a perfect ten- 
year-old boy; a perfect ten-year-old boy is not a per- 



A Friendly Talk. 



353 



feet full-grown young man; a perfect full-grown young 
man is not a perfect old father. Just so, a perfect 
" babe in Christ " is not a perfect young man in 
Christ; a perfect young man in Christ is not a perfect 
father in Israel; a perfect father in Israel is not a 
perfect angel in heaven; a perfect angel in heaven is 
not a perfect God. Do you get the idea now? 

Member. O yes; I think I do. Let me see; you 
mean about this, I suppose. When a babe is born 
without any deformity in any of its limbs or body, it 
is a perfect babe; if it lives to the age of ten years, 
and by the proper use of food and " bodily exercise " 
it is as well developed in every part as it should be, it 
is a perfect ten-year-old boy; and so on up to man- 
hood. And just so, when any one is born of God he 
is a perfect babe in Christ; by the faithful use of all 
the means of grace in due time he develops into a 
perfect young man in Christ, and so on. 

Pastor. Yes, sir; that is the idea of genuine conver- 
sion, and after that steady growth by a faithful per- 
formance of all Christian duties, trusting in God at 
all times, " walking after the spirit and not after the 
flesh," thus "growing up into Christ, our living head." 
This stands to Scripture and common sense. 

Member. It does look so; and if that is true, we ought 
to be very careful to get the " first blessing" or new 
birth pure and genuine. It seems clear to me now 
that all who are born of God are his sons and daugh- 
ters, and if they are "obedient children" God re- 
quires no more. 

Pastor. "And because ye are his sons, God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, cry- 
ing, Abba, Father. "Wherefore thou art no more a 
servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God 
23 



354 



A Friendly Talk. 



through Christ." (GaL iv. 6, 7.) And we have re- 
ceived "the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God: and if chil- 
dren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may 
be also glorified together." (Eoni. viii. 15-17.) Here 
it is: (1) Born of God; (2) sons of God; (3) the 
Spirit of his Son in our hearts enabling us to cry, 
"Abba, Father;" (4) bearing witness with our spirit 
that we are the children of God; (5) if children, then 
heirs of God: (6) if heirs of God, then joint heirs 
with Christ; (7) if joint heirs with Christ, we shall 
be glorified with him; (8) on the condition that we 
suffer with him. As long as Christ was on earth in 
the flesh, he was " a man of sorrows, and acquainted 
with grief." (Isa. liii. 3.) As long as we are in this 
world, no matter how pure, holy, good, and sanctified 
we may be, the decree has gone forth from the lips 
of the blessed son of God: "In the world ye shall 
have tribulation." (John xvi. 33.) Then let us suffer 
with him. 

Member. I am so glad you brought out that point. 
I see now. Christ did not come to send peace on 
earth, but a sword. This is the battlefield, and the 
crows are above. I see that now, and we need not 
hope to get above where Christ was while he was on 
earth. We will have tears and sorrows, trials and 
temptations, grief and tribulations as long as we are 
in this world. 

Pastor. Just so, "'but God is faithful, who will not 
suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but 
will with the temptation also make a way to escape, 
that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. x. 13. ) " Be- 



A Friendly Talk. 



355 



cause greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the 
world." (1 John iv. 4. ) " For whatsoever is born of 
God overcometh the world: and this is the victory 
that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 
v. 4.) What more could we ask? Now, brother; he 
that is born of God is either the child of God, or he 
is not. If he is the child of God, he is not a half child, 
but a ivhole child; but if he is not a child of God, 
then whose child is he? and what has he gained by 
being a child of God? 

Member. Well, I must confess that I am about con- 
vinced that the " second blessing" theory cannot be 
sustained by the Bible, and that if a man gets the 
" first blessing" right, or is 

Truly Born of God, 

and will then "be faithful unto death," he shall have 
a crown of life. But will you be kind enough to tell 
me in few words just how a sinner may become a son 
of God. 

Pastor, With pleasure. 1. He must have deep, 
genuine conviction. O Lord, " I am not worthy of the 
least of all the mercies." (Gen. xxxii. 10.) 2. He 
must heartily repent of ail his sins. He must abhor his 
sins, "abhor that which is evil." (Bom. xii. 9. ) " The 
sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell 
got hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow." (Ps. 
cxvi. 3.) 3. He must cry to God with a penitent, 
trusting heart for deliverance from sin and hell. 
" Then called I upon the name of the Lord; O Lord, I 
beseech thee, deliver my soul." (Ps. cxvi. 4.) "Lord, 
what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts ix. 6.) "God 
be merciful to me a sinner," and " this man went 
down to his house justified." (Luke xviii. 13, 14.) 



356 



A Friendly Talk. 



"For with the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
ness." (Bom. x. 10.) Therefore "seek ye the Lord 
while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is 
near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unright- 
eous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the 
Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our 
God, for he will abundantly pardon." (Isa. lv. 6, 
7.) 4 The result: "whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be saved." (Eom. x. 13.) 
"He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of 
the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and estab- 
lished my goings. And he hath put a new song in 
my mouth, even praise unto our God." (Ps. xl. 2, 3. ) 

Member. Yes, I see now; David was not brought 
only partly out of the pit, but he w r as brought entirely 
out; his feet were not taken partly out of the miry 
clay, but wholly out; his feet were not set close by the 
rock, but they were set upon the rock; his goings were 
not partly, but ivholly established; the song which was 
put in his mouth was not partly, but ivholly new. But, 
brother, could you give me some other illustrations 
of conversion and Christian growth that will be in 
exact harmony with those you have already given. 

Pastor. Yes, sir; there is the leaven in the meal: 
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which 
a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, 
until the whole was leavened." (Matt. xiii. 33.) The 
leaven was put in, and after that the work went on by 
gradual growth, without any great second, sudden 
change. The " second blessing " theory finds no sup- 
port here; and now, my brother, just to make short 
work of this matter, I do not know one single illus- 
tration of the new birth and Christian growth that 
was used by Christ or any of his apostles which lends 



A Friendly Talk. 



357 



any support to the " second blessing" theory, but 
they all overturn it. Take all the cases of Christ 
"raising the dead/' " cleansing the lepers," "healing 
the sick," " opening the eyes of the blind," and "cast- 
ing out devils." Did he have to make a second trial 
in any of these cases before the work was perfect? 

Member. I do not remember a single case in which 
he had to carry them through a second great change 
in order that the subject might be perfectly whole. 

Pastor. Take the case of the man who was "lame 
from his mother's womb." (Acts iii. 2. ) Peter " took 
him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and im- 
mediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 
And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered 
with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and 
praising God." (Verses 7, 8.) No "second blessing" 
here; he got the first blessing right, and was perfectly 
whole. 

Member. That is so. Did any of the apostles or 
New Testament Christians ever tell anybody that they 
had received a second great change after their " new 
birth," that suddenly brought them up to a high state 
of holiness which no truly converted man could pos- 
sibly reach by growth in grace? 

Pastor. If they did, I do not know where to find the 
statement. "By their fruits ye shall know them," 
says Jesus; and seeing that the blessed Son of God 
worked quietly and steadily and as privately as possi- 
ble, often saying, " See that thou tell no man," and 
as his followers are to let their " lights shine before 
men," as the "candle that is on the candle stand," 
and seeing that the candle makes no great ado about 
its shining, but simply quietly shines, and the less it 
is blown the better will be the light ; seeing these 



358 



A Friendly Talk. 



things, I say, should suggest to the followers of the 
meek and lowly Lamb of God the propriety of letting 
our fruits show who w T e are and what we are. You 
pass a tree laden with golden fruit, sweet and lus- 
cious, but not one word does the tree say — its fruit 
tells the story — no need for any words from the tree 
as to what it is, for "a tree is known by its fruits," 
and " a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit." So 
let us, my brother, go on serving God faithfully, re- 
membering that " by the grace of God we are what 
we are," and if there is anything extra or wonderful 
about us it can be seen quickly and more satisfacto- 
rily by our fruits than in any other way. 

Member. My mother used to tell me that " actions 
speak louder than words," and I begin to see that she 
was about right. I believe I am ready to give up the 
"second blessing" theory, for 1 do not see how youi 
arguments can be answered. They seem to be based 
squarely on the Bible, and when we claim the " sec- 
ond blessing" for the apostles, we claim for them 
what they did not claim for themselves. Of course I 
know I have had thousands of blessings since my con- 
version, but no "second blessing" as held by the sec- 
ond blessing brethren of these days. Now I would 
like for you to sum up as briefly as you can the 
points you have made, that I may remember them 
better. 

Pastor. I will do so with pleasure. 1. We found 
the Bible meaning of the word "sanctify," both in 
the Old and New Testament, to be "separated, set 
apart." 2. That the word was applied to things as 
well as to men. 3. That it was applied to God and to 
Jesus Christ. 4. That Aaron sinned after he was 
sanctified. 5. That two of Aaron's sons died "before 



A Fkiendly Talk. 



359 



the Lord " for their sins after they were sanctified. 
6. That the evil propensities of the flesh are not taken 
out of the body when a man is sanctified. 7. That a 
sanctified person lives a pure life by keeping under 
his body, and bringing it into subjection. 8. That 
truly converted people may, by the grace of God, 
crucify, bind, confine, "mortify the deeds of the 
body." 9. That they are dead to the service of the 
flesh, therefore should not walk after the flesh. 10. 
That they are alive to Christ, therefore should walk 
after the Spirit. 11. That the "old man" is in har- 
mony-with the flesh, and out of harmony with Christ. 
12. That the new man is out of harmony with the 
flesh, and in harmony with Christ. 13. That the 
bodies of sanctified people will never be anything 
in this world but natural bodies. 14. That there- 
fore Paul had " no confidence in the flesh." 15. That 
a converted soul in an unconverted body would keep 
"war in the members." 16. That in the resurrection 
all evil propensities will be left out of the bodies 
of the saints. 17. That the bodies of sinners will 
be raised up with all their evil propensities and with- 
out any means to gratify them. 18. That the Bible is 
perfectly silent on the "second blessing" as taught 
by some. 19. That good people receive a benefit 
every time they are ministered to by God's faithful 
preachers. 20. That the Christian's inheritance is 
not in this world, but in heaven. 21. That the apos- 
tles of Christ, being called, ordained, "separated" 
from their sins, and " set apart " to preach the gospel, 
were sanctified, in the Bible sense of that term, before 
Pentecost. 22. That they showed selfishness, and 
had contentions after Pentecost. 23. That it took a 
miracle to get the selfishness out of Peter eight years 



360 



A Friendly Talk. 



after Pentecost. 24 That if the apostles got the sec- 
ond blessing at Pentecost, it did not do for them 
what some people claim it has done for them nowa- 
days. 25. That proving that Cornelius was a Chris- 
tian before Peter preached to him is no proof in 
favor of the second blessing in his case, unless it be 
proved also that all his kindred and near friends were 
Christians and received the second blessing on the 
same occasion. 26. That Christian perfection is ob- 
tained in conversion. 27. That all who are born of 
God are perfect children of God. 28. That God re- 
quires the whole heart, and gives a whole blessing. 
29. That the all-important matter is to get the first 
blessing right, and then persevere to the end. 30. 
That all the illustrations of conversion and Christian 
growth used by Christ and his apostles oppose the sec- 
ond blessing theory. 31. That a newborn babe devel- 
ops into manhood without any great second change, 
by gradual growth. 32. That so may all "newborn 
babes " in Christ develop into fathers and mothers in 
Israel by gradual growth. 33. That those who are 
born of God are " separated " from sin, " set apart to 
the service of God, sanctified. 34. That a perfect babe 
is not a perfect man, neither is a perfect Christian a 
perfect angel. 35. That as long as Christ was in this 
world in the flesh, he was a " man of sorrows, and ac- 
quainted with grief." 36. That as long as we are in this 
world we shall have tribulations, 37. That in no case 
where Christ healed the sick, cast out devils, or raised 
the dead did he have to make the second effort before 
the case was ivhole, perfect 38. That no apostle or 
New Testament Christian ever claimed or said one 
word about a great second cleansing after their new 
birth. 39. That we are known by our fruits. 40. 



A Friendly Talk. 



361 



That if we are pure, holy, sanctified, and will let our 
lights shine, men will know what we are without our 
being noisy about it. 41. That we must be — 

Member, There, brother; that will do. I know I 
was truly converted, and am still in favor with God; 
for " he that believeth on the Son of God hath the 
witness in himself." (1 John v. 10.) And by the 
grace of God I will try to let my light shine brightly 
to the end. Pray for me. 

Pastor. God bless you. He who has felt the deep- 
est heart sickness on account of sins, and has felt the 
darkest waves of despair rolling over his soul while 
in the agonies of repentance, and looked from the 
depths of this darkness with a " broken and a contrite 
heart" to the "Lamb of God that taketh away the 
sins of the world," and has seen the " light above the 
brightness of the sun," and has been "quickened to- 
gether with" Christ knows that he is a child of God, 
and shall have an " inheritance with all the sancti- 
fied " if he holds out faithful to the end. God help 
us to be faithful. "The disciple is not above his 
master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough 
for the disciple that he be as his master, and the 
servant as his lord." (Matt. x. 24, 25.) "For we 
have not a high priest which cannot be touched with 
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points 
tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 
iv. 15, ) 

Member. Just one more question: What did Paul 
mean when he said, "Not as though I had already 
attained, either were already perfect?" (Phil. iii. 12.) 

Pastor. In the verse just before the one you cite, he 
said, after speaking of being found in Christy and 
having the righteousness " which is through the faith 



362 



A Friendly Talk. 



of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith," that he might know Christ and the power of 
his resurrection, he then says: "If by any means I 
might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." 
(Verse 11.) Then comes the verse you want ex- 
plained, and it is this: "Although I am in Christ 
and know God," yet there is still a 'thorn' in my 
flesh, 'the messenger of Satan to buffet me' (2 Cor. 
xii. 7) 5 and I have not attained to the resurrection of 
the just: neither am I yet perfect, my body being full 
of corruptions, but I mean to press forward in the 
faithful discharge of every duty, even unto death; 
and 'let as many as be perfect 9 in spirit 'be thus 
minded' (verse 15), having 'our conversation in 
heaven ; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the 
Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change oar vile body, that 
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body 9 (verses 
20, 21), then I shall be perfect, both soul and body." 
God grant that all who read these pages may attain 
unto the resurrection of the just, the first resurrec- 
tion, for on such the second death shall have no pow- 
er. " These things I have spoken unto you, that in 
me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have 
tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome 
the world." (John xvi. 33.) 

Member. What shall I say to those who tell me that 
the " old Adam " is taken out of all who have received 
the "second blessing," so that they cannot sin? 

Pastor. Ask them how the " old Adam " got into 
the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 
vi. ) and into Adam and Eve and caused them to sin 
and fall. 



SAUL'S CONVERSION 

A Clear Case of Holiness. 

(363) 



CHAPTER X. 

Saul's Conveksion — A Clear Case oe Holiness. 

In this chapter I will discuss the " second-blessing " 
theory of sanctification, with special reference to St. 
Paul's case. I do this, first, because we have a plain 
scriptural account of the depraved condition of " Saul 
of Tarsus " before his conversion. The first account 
w-e have of him he was a " young man," but old 
enough in crime to keep the raiment of those who 
shed the blood of the martyr Stephen, and consent 
to his death. (Acts vii. 58; xxii. 20.) " Waxing 
worse and worse," we soon find him " breathing out 
threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the 
Lord," obtaining " letters of authority from the high 
priest," that he might bind and cast into prison any 
he found in that way, " men or women," "persecuting 
them even unto strange cities," "compelling them to 
blaspheme," " blasphemer " himself, and by the inspi- 
ration of the Holy Ghost he says he was the "chief " 
of sinners. (1 Tim. i. 15.) With such a record as 
this we will be safe in saying that Saul had as many 
kinds of depravity in him as any man, and needed as 
many blessings to set him right. 

The second reason is, we have a clear scriptural ac- 
count of Saul's conversion recorded in Acts ix. 3-18. 
On his way to Damascus with "letters of authority," 
and deep-seated purpose to "enter into the syna- 
gogues," and drag the devout worshipers from the sa- 
cred altars and persecute them "unto the death," and 
this in keeping with his former conduct, for he had 

(365) 



366 



Saul's Conversion. 



already " punished them oft in every synagogue, and 
compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly 
mad against them," he had " persecuted them even 
unto strange cities." (Acts xxvi. 11.) In such a 
frame of mind, and surrounded by a bloody mob, it 
would seem that there was nothing favorable to pun- 
gent conviction, but man's ways are not God's ways. 
In the midst of these unfavorable conditions "sud- 
denly there shined round about him a light from 
heaven." Heavenly light always shows the sinner 
his true condition, so Saul "fell to the earth." How 
natural for a convicted sinner to go down both in 
body and spirit! When down he " heard a voice say- 
ing unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" 
What searching words, and yet how tender! From the 
depth of his soul Saul asked: " Who art thou, Lord?" 
And the Lord said: "I am Jesus whom thou per- 
secutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." 
With a " broken and contrite heart " Saul " trembling 
and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to 
do?" Here is unreserved submission of the entire man 
to the will of God. At once the Lord put his sincerity 
to the test: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be 
told thee what thou must do." Go to the man whom 
you were seeking that you might bind and cast him 
into prison, the man against whom, just a moment 
since, you were "exceedingly mad," and submit to 
his teaching. What a test! But Saul's conviction 
went to the bottom of his depravity, so he went with- 
out gainsaying. Bodily blind, he must be led by his 
companions to the " disciple of the Lord " at Damas- 
cus; spiritually blind, he must be led by this disciple 
to light and life. Not only did Saul's conviction go 



Saul's Conversion. 



367 



to the bottom of iiis depravity, but liis penitence was 
thorough. "He was three clays without sight, and 
neither did eat nor drink," and all this while he 
prayed. (Verse 11. ) Now with such conviction and 
penitence we may be sure of a thorough work in his 
regeneration, "the blood of Jesus Christ" cleansing 
him from " all sin." Let us see, "And Ananias went 
his way, and entered into the house; and putting his 
hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Je- 
sus, that apxoeared unto thee in the way as thou earn- 
est, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy 
sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And im- 
mediately there fell from his eyes as it had been 
scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, 
and was baptized." Here is " free and full salvation " 
from all sin, and Saul needed nothing more to qualify 
him for all the work of the ministry, for he says this: 
" When it pleased God, who . . called me by 
his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach 
him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not 
with flesh and blood." (Gal. i. 15, 16.) Here is 
thorough consecration to the ministry, and it is plain 
that Paul refers here to his conversion as recorded 
in Acts ix., for immediately after his conversion Luke 
says: " Then was Saul certain days with the disciples 
which were at Damascus. And straightway he 
preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son 
of God." (Acts ix. 19, 20.) Now the question is: 
Did Paul receive only partial salvation from all sin 
in his conversion, and was the "carnal mind" left in 
him to be taken out by a " second blessing " subse- 
quently ? If so, who will cite us to chapter and verse 
where we may read an account of his second change? 



368 



Saul's Conversion, 



But this brings me to the third reason why I exam- 
ine this subject with special reference to Paul's case; 
and that is, because we have his religious experience 
from his own lips twenty-five years after his conver- 
sion. In Acts xxii. 7-16 his experience is record- 
ed. The Jews in Jerusalem were going "about to 
kill him," and "all Jerusalem was in an uproar." 
(Acts xxi. 31.) In the midst of the tumult Paul 
asked and obtained permission "to speak unto the 
people." (Verse 39.) The speech begins with the 
first verse of the twenty-second chapter. In a few 
sentences he comes straight to his religious experi- 
ence. He gives the hour when the "light shone from 
heaven " round about him — " about noon." "And I 
fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto 
me, Saul, Saul, why persecutestthoume?" He goes 
on relating all the facts substantially as they are re- 
corded in Acts ix., where we have the account of his 
conversion, but gives not even the slightest intimation 
that since his conversion he had received a second 
great change called the "second blessing." Two 
years later, when Paul was a prisoner, he spoke in his 
owu defense before Agrippa. His speech is recorded 
in Acts xxvi. Here Paul declares his life from his 
childhood, and again gives his religious experience. 
The account of the conversion here is substantially 
the same as is given in the twenty-second chapter, 
but not one w T ord does he say about any great second 
cleansing. Now, when we remember that Paul wrote 
about two-thirds of all that is said about sanctifica- 
tion in the New Testament, and that he is the only New 
Testament writer whose former life, conversion, and 
religious experience is so fully given by inspiration, 



Saul's Conversion. 



369 



and that there is an utter absence of the slightest hint 
that he obtained entire sanctification by a second 
great spiritual cleansing, we are absolutely astonished 
that so many have tried to torture the writings of 
Paul into the service of the second-blessing the- 
ory. If Paul had needed the " second blessing," he 
certainly would have obtained it; and if he had ob- 
tained it, and it had affected him as it seems to af- 
fect men now, surely he would have given us some 
account of it. Who will profess the " second bless- 
ing" for Paul, and tell us where we can find it re- 
corded in the Scriptures? The " second blessing " 
has been professed in this nineteenth century for all 
of the apostles, but who will cite us to the record 
where one of them ever prof essed it for himself? 
24 



CHAPTER XL 



Analogy. 

I wish to make a plain, scriptural argument on the 
" second-blessing " theory of sarjctification from anal- 
ogy. Man was created pure, holy, upright, "in the 
image of God," "So God created man in his own 
image, in the image of God created he him; male 
and female created he them. 5 ' (Gen. i. 27.) Then 
how did man become corrupt? The answer is clear 
and unmistakable. The devil entered the garden of 
Eden only once, presented only one temptation: "Ye 
shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the 
day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, 
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." 
(Gen. iii. 4, 5.) With this one entry and one tempta- 
tion the devil secured one act of disobedience. "And 
when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, 
and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be 
desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit there- 
of, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with 
her; and he did eat." (Gen. iii. 6.) "Wherefore, 
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin." (Rom. v. 12.) Here we have one entry of 
the devil into the garden of Eden, one temptation, 
one sin by one man, and the result — death. Created 
in the image of God, in harmony with God, a subject 
of the kingdom of light — God's kingdom; but man 
took the suggestion of the devil, violated God's law, 
and was born out of the kingdom of light and life into 
the kingdom of darkness and death ! Here is a birth 
(370) 



Analogy. 



371 



downward. Now in this downward birth man lost 
the image o£ God, "the mind that is in Christ 
Jesus;" and received the image of the devil, the 
mind of the devil, the "carnal mind." death! How, 
then, must he proceed to regain what he lost in this 
birth? If we reason by analogy, we would say he 
must have a birth upward, "out of darkness into 
light," out of the kingdom of the devil into the king- 
dom of God, out of the image of the devil into the 
image of God. By "one sin" unbelief, accompanied 
by an act which gave it outward expression, man got 
fully into the kingdom of the devil, entirely lost the 
image of God, so by one act of faith in God he may 
be born out of the kingdom of darkness, into the 
kingdom of light, entirely lose the image of the 
devil, and fully gain the mind that is in Christ 
Jesus. (Phil. ii. 5.) Here we meet with opposi- 
tion. Some teach that man must undergo two great 
spiritual changes before he can regain all he lost 
through one temptation of the devil — that he must 
be "born again," and subsequent to this birth he 
must get "the second blessing; 53 that after he is 
"born of God" the "carnal mind," the mind of the 
devil, is still in him and must remain there until he 
gets the "second blessing," They reason thus: that 
in the new birth our actual sins are pardoned, but 
it takes the second blessing to get the carnal mind 
out of us. Let us try that by analogy. We do not 
know how long Adam and Eve had been in the gar- 
den of Eden before they fell, but we do know that 
from their creation to the fall every act of their lives 
was an act of obedience to God. Let us say, then, that 
the devil gave Adam one cursing, by which he re- 



372 



Analogy. 



moved all of his actual obedience to God, but left the 
mind of Christ still in him, and in this state Adam 
was not an entire child of the devil; but some time 
subsequent to this first cursing, or downward birth, 
the devil entered the garden the second time, and gave 
him a second cursing, by which he took out of him 
all the remains of the divine mind, and then Adam 
was entirely depraved, wholly a child of the devil. 

We see at once that this would be analogous to the 
second-blessing theory of sanctification, but the de- 
fenders of that theory would reject the second curs- 
ing theory because it is out of harmony with the 
facts recorded in the Bible. Now if the devil did 
more in 'one cursing than God can undo in one bless- 
ing, God must be secondary to the devil, and Paul 
was mistaken when he wrote, "But where sin 
abounded, grace did much more abound." (Bom. v. 
20.) It seems to me this passage would exactly fit 
the second -blessing theory if it read this way: 
"Grace did much Jess abound." Before proceeding 
with the argument further, I will state what I be- 
lieve is in perfect accord with the Word of God and 
with common sense. One cursing put men ivholly 
out of harmony with God, and into harmony with 
the devil — a full child of the devil. From analogy, 
then, one blessing, the new birth, puts man ivholly 
out of harmony with the devil and into harmony 
with God — a complete child of God. Let us now 
take another case, which, it seems to me, -should 
settle this question beyond a doubt. With refer- 
ence to his salvation, Nicodemus went to Jesus 
for information. Jesus said to him: "Verily, veri- 
ly, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, 



Analogy, 



373 



lie can not see the kingdom of God." "Ye must be 
born again." (John iii. 3, 7.) Xotice that Jesus 
did not so much as intimate that another great 
change must be sought and obtained subsequent to 
this spiritual birth. Now if the second-blessing 
theory is true, what reason will we give for Jesus 
failing to say one word about it when he was instruct- 
ing an earnest* inquirer after salvation? Can we be- 
lieve that the perfect Teacher would neglect such an 
important matter? But Jesus tells Xicodemus just 
how this spiritual birth is obtained. "And as Moses 
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
the Son of man be lifted, up: that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have eternal life." 
(John iii. 14, 15c) Here we notice that the faith 
which secures the new birth secures eternal life at 
the same time. If, then, the spiritual birth brings 
us to "eternal life," does the second blessing carry 
us beyond eternal life? Surely it must if it carries 
us far beyond the new birth. But we will notice the 
illustration which Christ uses: "As Moses lifted up 
the serpent." The children of Israel were bitten by 
a poisonous serpent and were dying from the effects 
of the bite. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make 
thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it 
shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, 
when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses 
made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole; and 
it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, 
when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." 
(Num. xxi. 8, 9.) Here we see one bite, death; in 
the remedy we see one look, life, Xow it is plain 
that if a perfect bodily cure was reached by one look 



374 



Analogy. 



on the fiery serpent, so it is equally clear that one 
look by faith on the Son of God secures a perfect 
spiritual cure. Now if the second-blessing theory be 
true, the illustration Jesus used does not cover the 
case. If we say, then, that when a bitten Israelite took 
the first look at the fiery serpent he got some relief 
from the bite — got so he could walk around some — 
but the poison of the serpent was still whole in him, 
coursing its way through every vein and artery of 
his body, and this made it necessary for him to take 
a second look, and at this second look the last remains 
of the poison was entirely taken from his system, and 
he was ivholly cured of the bite, and without this sec- 
ond look he never could have gotten entirely well, 
what then? Just this, we are squarely in contact 
with the facts recorded in Numbers xxi. 8, 9. It fol- 
lows, then, that one look on Christ by faith wholly 
cures the soul of all spiritual disease, and makes us 
whole children of God. " The carnal mind is enmity 
against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, 
neither indeed can be;" (Horn. viii. 7.) "Enmity" 
can not love, can not obey the law of God, therefore no 
one can be a child of God with the carnal mind in 
him. The carnal mind is the corrupt root out of 
which grows all sin and iniquity, hence John Bap- 
tist said: "The ax is laid unto the root of the trees." 
(Matt. iii. 10.) Good fruit can not grow from a cor- 
rupt root. Fresh water can not flow from a salt 
fountain. Pure water can not flow from a corrupt 
fountain. (Jas. iii. 11, 12.) Good fruit can not 
grow on a corrupt tree. First make the tree good, 
and its fruit will be good. (Matt. vii. 17-19.) A 
good life can not come from a carnal heart. (Matt. 



Analogy. 



375 



xii. 33-35. ) A new-born babe has the image, likeness, 
of its parents; a new-born soul has the image of God, 
the mind that is in Christ. But let us go one step 
farther with Christ's illustration of the spiritual 
birth. Let us say that when a child is born of its 
mother it is not a complete child of its mother, that it 
is still compassed about with the darkness with 
which it was shrouded before its birth, and that be- 
fore it can become wholly a child of its mother it 
must, at some unspecified time, subsequent to its 
birth, undergo another radical change, equal to if not 
greater than the change it experienced in its birth, 
and then it is entirely a child of its mother, and is 
now for the first time tvholly a human being. Then 
what? We are then squarely in opposition to every 
vestige of truth in the matter, truth that is well 
known to the most stupid as well as to the wise. 
Then let us take the case just as Jesus gave it to 
Nicodernus, and preach to dying men free,fidl, pres- 
ent salvation from all sin. Let us never preach piece- 
meal salvation to sinners. " To-day is the day of 
salvation," "Now is the accepted time." Now, dear 
reader, we must part for a season, "And the Lord thy 
God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy 
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, 
and with all thy soul, that thou may est live." (Deut. 
xxx. 6.) "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 
iv. 5. ) " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Amen. 



Jiforo than 235,000 Sold. 



POPULAR WORKS 



BY REV. J. H. NICHOLS, 

Of the Tennessee Conference. 



THE RIGHT OF A SINNER TO PRAY.— An unanswerable 
argument, based on " Thus saith the Lord." Eighteen thousand copies 
have been sold. Price, 5 cents; 50 cents per dozen, by mail. 

THEOLOGICAL GRUB AX -A great error grubbed up by the 
roots. Infant baptism plainly taught in the Bible. Fifty thousand copies 
have been sold. Price, 10 cents; $1 per dozen, by mail. 

THE ECCLESIASTICAL PUMP, -The water pumped out of 
Canipbellism. Twenty-eight thousand copies have been sold. Price, 10 
cents; $1 per dozen, by mail. 

THE FURNACE.— A treatise on Depravity. Capacity of the Soul, 
Divine Influence of the Holy Spirit, etc. Twelve thousand copies have 
been sold. Price, 10 cents; $1 per dozen, by mail. 

THE SHIPWRECK.— A treatise on Apostasy and Close Commim 
ion. Ten thousand copies have been sold. Price, 10 cents; SI per dozen- 
by mail. 

THE CURRYCOMB curries Campbellism nicely for 10 cents; &], 
per dozen, by mail. 

THE SPRINKLER.— Xo dipping for baptism found in the Bible. 

Price, 10 cents; .$1 per dozen, by mail. 

A FRIENDLY TALK on the Second Blessing. Price, 10 cents, $1 
per dozen, by mail. 

THE WHEEL.— Religious Organization God's Order. The Method- 
ist Church Organized on the Apostolic Basis. Price, 10 cents; $1 per 
dozen, by mail. 

BIBLE TOOLS FOR BUSY PEOPLE, -This book is a collec- 
tion of all the author's pamphlets into one volume, with additional new 
matter. 12mo, cloth, pp. vi, 375. Price, $1, by mail. 

ANALOGY; or, The Second-Blessing Theory of Sanctiflcation Con- 
sidered from the Standpoint of Saul's Conversion, and an Argument by 
Analogy and the Bible. Price, 10 cents; $1 per dozen, by mail. 

For any of the above pamphlets, send to 

BARBEE & SMITH, Agents, 

Publishing House M. E. Church, South, 

NASHVILLE, TEINN. 



THE NICHOLS DETACHER. 

Buggy drawn by shafts, no singletree used: thus giving horse great ad- 
vantage in leverage, relieving him of much worry. Harness greatly 
cheapened, and much neater. Horse freed from buggy bv drawing a cord. 

For information, address REV. J. H. NICHOLS, 

Duck River, Tenn. 



AUG 5 .1898 



3X 2^3 jf 



